Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Engineers Corps
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Justice Programs Office
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue 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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Fort Dodge Animal Health, A Division of Wyeth Holdings Corp. The supplemental NADA provides for a revised food safety warning statement for oral use of sulfachlorpyridazine in the milk or milk replacer of ruminating calves.
This rule is effective June 24, 2008.
Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8341, e-mail:
Fort Dodge Animal Health, A Division of Wyeth Holdings Corp., P.O. Box 1339, Fort Dodge, IA 50501, filed a supplement to NADA 33-373 for VETISULID (sulfachlorpyridazine sodium) Powder, approved for oral use in calves and swine for the treatment of diarrhea caused or complicated by
Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(A) In drinking water; or
(B) For individual treatment, in an oral suspension containing approximately 42 mg sulfachlorpyridazine per milliliter in divided doses twice daily.
(ii)
(iii)
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule; correction and stay of effective date.
This document contains a correction to a final rule that was published May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29354). The regulation relates to gaming on trust lands acquired after October 17, 1988.
The effective date of this correction is June 24, 2008. In rule FR Document E8-11086 published on May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29353), the effective date of the rule is stayed until August 25, 2008.
Paula Hart, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming, (202) 219-4066.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs published on May 20, 2008, a final rule relating to gaming on trust lands acquired after October 17, 1988. The preamble to this
In rule FR Document E8-11086 published on May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29353), make the following corrections:
1. On page 29354, in the first column, the effective date is listed as June 19, 2008. This is stayed until August 25, 2008.
2. On page 29358, in the second column, under the heading “Section 292.3 When can a tribe conduct gaming activities on trust lands?” a sentence was omitted after the sentence that ends, “concerns whether a specific area of land is a reservation.” A new sentence should be added in this location to read, “Regardless of where the tribe sends its request for an Indian lands opinion, the Department will coordinate the completion of the request by the appropriate offices.”
3. On page 29374, in the third column, under the heading “Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA),” the first sentence reads, “This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act.” This sentence should be corrected to read, “This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act.” In this same location, paragraph (a) incorrectly states that this rule, “Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.” This should be corrected to read, “Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.”
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains final and temporary regulations under section 956 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding the determination of basis in certain United States property (within the meaning of section 956(c) of the Code) acquired by a controlled foreign corporation in certain nonrecognition transactions that are intended to repatriate earnings and profits of the controlled foreign corporation without United States income taxation. The final regulation adds a cross reference to the temporary regulations. These regulations affect United States shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation that acquires United States property in certain nonrecognition transactions. The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-102122-08) set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
John H. Seibert at (202) 622-3860 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 956, which was added to the Code by the Revenue Act of 1962, Public Law 87-834 (76 Stat. 960 (1962)). The temporary regulations in this document are issued under the authority of sections 367(b) and 956(e). Section 367(b) was added to the Code by section 1042(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Public Law 94-455 (90 Stat. 1520 (1976)). Section 956(e) was added to the Code by section 13232(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, (107 Stat 312 (1993)).
The temporary regulations in this document apply to determine the basis of certain United States property (as defined in section 956(c) of the Code) acquired by a controlled foreign corporation in certain nonrecognition transactions that are intended to repatriate earnings and profits of the controlled foreign corporation without an income inclusion by the United States shareholders of the controlled foreign corporation under section 951(a)(1)(B).
The IRS and the Treasury Department are aware that certain taxpayers are engaging in certain nonrecognition transactions in which a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) acquires certain United States property (within the meaning of section 956(c)) without resulting in an income inclusion to the United States shareholders of the CFC under section 951(a)(1)(B).
In one such transaction, for example, USP, a domestic corporation and the common parent of an affiliated group that files a consolidated tax return, owns 100-percent of the outstanding stock of US1 and US2, both domestic corporations that join USP in the filing of a consolidated tax return. US1 owns 100 percent of the stock of CFC, a controlled foreign corporation. US2 issues $100x of its stock to CFC in exchange for $10x of CFC stock and $90x cash.
USP takes the position that: (i) US2's transfer of its stock to CFC in exchange for $10x of CFC stock and $90x cash is an exchange to which section 351 applies; (ii) US2 recognizes no gain on the receipt of $10x of CFC stock and $90x cash in exchange for its stock pursuant to section 1032(a); (iii) CFC recognizes no gain on the issuance of its stock to US2 under section 1032(a); (iv) CFC's basis in the US2 stock is zero pursuant to section 362(a); and (v) US1 and US2 do not and will not have an income inclusion under section 951(a)(1)(B) as a result of CFC holding the US2 stock (which constitutes United States property under section 956(c)).
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe these transactions raise significant policy concerns because the transactions may have the effect of repatriating earnings and profits of a CFC without a corresponding dividend inclusion, or an income inclusion under section 951(a)(1)(B) by reason of the CFC's investment in United States property.
Section 956 was enacted to require an income inclusion by United States shareholders of a CFC that invests certain earnings and profits in United States property “on the grounds that [the investment] is substantially the equivalent of a dividend being paid to them.” S. Rep. No. 87-1881, 1962-3 CB 703, 794 (1962). (See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(
Under Section 951(a)(1)(B) each United States shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) of a CFC (as defined in section 957(a)) must include in its gross
The amount determined under section 956 with respect to a United States shareholder of a CFC for any taxable year is the lesser of: (1) The excess, if any, of the shareholder's pro rata share of the average amounts of United States property held (directly or indirectly) by the CFC as of the close of each quarter of such taxable year, over the amount of earnings and profits of the CFC described in section 959(c)(1)(A) with respect to such shareholder; or (2) the shareholder's pro rata share of the applicable earnings of the CFC. In general, the amount taken into account with respect to any United States property for this purpose is the adjusted basis of such property as determined for purposes of computing earnings and profits, reduced by any liability to which the property is subject. Earnings and profits described in section 959(c)(1)(A) are attributable to amounts previously included in gross income by the United States shareholder under section 951(a)(1)(B) (or which would have been included except for section 959(a)(2)).
Section 956(c)(1) defines United States property to generally include stock of a domestic corporation and an obligation of a United States person. However, section 956(c)(2) excludes from the definition of United States property, the stock or obligations of a domestic corporation which is neither a United States shareholder of the CFC, nor a domestic corporation 25 percent or more of the total combined voting power of which, immediately after the CFC's acquisition of stock in such domestic corporation, is owned (or is considered as being owned) by the United States shareholders of the CFC in the aggregate.
Section 956(e) grants the Secretary authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of section 956, including regulations to prevent the avoidance of section 956 through reorganizations or otherwise.
Section 367(b)(1) provides that in the case of any exchange described in section 332, 351, 354, 355, 356 or 361, in connection with which there is no transfer of property described in section 367(a)(1), a foreign corporation shall be considered to be a corporation except to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary which are necessary or appropriate to prevent the avoidance of Federal income taxes.
Section 367(b)(2) provides that the regulations prescribed pursuant to section 367(b)(1) shall include (but shall not be limited to) regulations dealing with the sale or exchange of stock or securities in a foreign corporation by a United States person, including regulations providing the circumstances under which gain is recognized, amounts are included in gross income as a dividend, adjustments are made to earnings and profits, or adjustments are made to basis of stock or securities, and basis of assets.
Section 367(b) was enacted to ensure that international tax considerations are adequately addressed when the provisions of subchapter C of the Code apply to certain nonrecognition exchanges involving foreign corporations. In adopting section 367(b), Congress noted that “it is essential to protect against tax avoidance * * * upon the repatriation of previously untaxed foreign earnings.” H.R. Rep. No. 658, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 241 (1975).
Section 358(a)(1) generally provides that the basis of property received pursuant to an exchange to which section 351, 354, 355, 356, or 361 applies is the same as that of the property exchanged, decreased by the fair market value of any other property (except money) received by the taxpayer, the amount of any money received by the taxpayer, and the amount of loss to the taxpayer which was recognized on such exchange, and increased by the amount which was treated as a dividend, and the amount of gain to the taxpayer which was recognized on such exchange (not including any portion of such gain which was treated as a dividend).
Section 362(a) provides that if property is acquired by a corporation in connection with a transaction to which section 351 applies, or as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, then the basis of such property shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor, increased in the amount of gain recognized to the transferor on such transfer.
Section 1032(a) provides that no gain or loss shall be recognized to a corporation on the receipt of money or other property in exchange for stock (including treasury stock) of such corporation.
These temporary regulations apply when a CFC acquires stock or obligations of a domestic issuing corporation, that constitute United States property under section 956(c), from such corporation pursuant to an exchange in which the controlled foreign corporation's basis in such property is determined under section 362(a). If these temporary regulations apply to such an exchange, then, solely for purposes of section 956, the CFC's basis in such United States property shall be no less than the fair market value of the property transferred by the controlled foreign corporation in exchange for such property. For purposes of the temporary regulations, the term property has the meaning set forth in section 317(a), but includes any liability assumed by the CFC in connection with the exchange notwithstanding section 357(a).
These temporary regulations also apply if United States property, the basis of which is determined under these temporary regulations, is transferred to a related person (related person transferee), or by a related person transferee to another related person, pursuant to an exchange in which the related person transferee's basis in such property is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the transferor's basis in such property. This rule is intended to prevent taxpayers from attempting to avoid the general rule of the temporary regulations by subsequently transferring the United States property to a related person in another nonrecognition transaction.
The basis of United States property determined under the temporary regulations shall apply only for purposes of determining the amount of United States property acquired or held by a CFC under section 956, and accordingly the amount of a United States shareholder's income inclusion under section 951(a)(1)(B) with respect to such CFC.
The temporary regulations apply only to determine the basis of United States property acquired by a CFC pursuant to an exchange that is within the scope of these temporary regulations. All other basis determinations are made under the rules provided under section 956(a) and § 1.956-1(e)(1)(4).
These regulations apply to United States property acquired in exchanges occurring on or after June 24, 2008. No inference is intended as to the basis of United States property acquired by a
These temporary and final regulations are necessary to prevent abusive transactions of the type described in the explanation of provisions in this preamble. Accordingly, good cause is found for dispensing with notice and public procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act and for dispensing with a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3) of such Act. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
The principal author of these regulations is John H. Seibert, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
(e) * * * (1) * * * See § 1.956-1T(e)(6) for a special rule for determining amounts attributable to United States property acquired as the result of certain nonrecognition transactions.
(e)(5) and (e)(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.956-1T(e)(5) and (e)(6).
(f)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e)(5)
(6)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(f)
(2) The applicability of paragraph (e)(6) of this section will expire on June 23, 2011.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance under Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 664 on the tax effect of unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) on charitable remainder trusts. The regulations reflect the changes made to section 664(c) by section 424(a) and (b) of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The regulations affect charitable remainder trusts that have UBTI in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
Cynthia Morton at (202) 622-3060 (not a toll-free number).
The collections of information contained in these final regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-2101. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 1.664-1(c)(1). This information is required to enable a charitable remainder trust to report and pay the excise tax due on any UBTI of the trust.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection information displays a valid control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents might become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 664 of the Code. On March 7, 2008, proposed regulations (REG-127391-07) relating to the tax effect of UBTI on charitable remainder trusts were published in the
For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2007, section 664(c) provided that a charitable remainder trust (whether a charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust) would not be exempt from income tax for any year in which the trust had any UBTI (within the meaning of section 512). Instead, such trust was taxed for each such year under subchapter J as though it were a nonexempt, complex trust. The final regulations reflect the changes to section 664(c) made by section 424 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Act), Public Law 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922. Section 424(a) of the Act, which applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006, provides that charitable remainder trusts that have UBTI remain exempt from Federal income tax, but imposes a 100-percent excise tax on their UBTI.
The regulations confirm that, for purposes of determining the character of the distribution made to the beneficiary, the charitable remainder trust income that is UBTI is considered income of the trust. Specifically, income of the charitable remainder trust is allocated among the trust income categories in Treasury Regulation § 1.664-1(d)(1) without regard to whether any part of that income constitutes UBTI under section 512. The regulations also confirm that, consistent with § 1.664-1(d)(2), the excise tax imposed upon a charitable remainder trust with UBTI is treated as paid from corpus.
The two commentators requested transitional relief to allow time for charitable remainder trusts with investments producing significant UBTI to restructure these investments. The commentators noted that the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 revising section 664(c) was signed into law on December 20, 2006, and became effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2006. Consequently, charitable remainder trusts had 11 days to make changes in their investments in response to the legislation.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have carefully considered the concerns of the commentators and the request for transitional relief, but have not adopted this comment. The primary objective of adopting the tax on UBTI was to eliminate a source of unfair competition by placing the unrelated business activities of certain exempt organizations on the same tax basis as the nonexempt businesses with which they compete. See § 1.513-1(b). The provision denying the income tax exemption for charitable remainder trusts in years in which the trust has UBTI was enacted because Congress did “not believe that it is appropriate to allow the unrelated business income tax to be avoided by the use of a charitable remainder trust rather than a tax-exempt organization”. See Public Law 91-172, Senate Report 91-552 (H.R. 13270), CB 1969-3, P. 481-2. The sanction imposed under prior law on a charitable remainder trust investing in UBTI-producing asset(s), specifically the loss of tax-exempt status, was generally viewed as particularly onerous. Section 424 of the Act changed the sanction to alleviate its severity, but did not reflect any change in the long-standing policy to sanction and thus to discourage such investment by charitable remainder trusts.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This reporting burden flows directly from the statute implemented by these regulations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) (RFA) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of the regulations is Cynthia Morton, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * * (1) * * * (i) * * * A trust created after July 31, 1969, which is a charitable remainder trust, is exempt from all of the taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Code for any taxable year of the trust, except for a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2007, in which it has unrelated business taxable income. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006, an excise tax, treated as imposed by chapter 42, is imposed on charitable remainder trusts that have unrelated business taxable income. See paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(2)
For 2007, a charitable remainder annuity trust with a taxable year beginning on January 1, 2007, has $60,000 of ordinary income, including $10,000 of gross income from a partnership that constitutes unrelated business taxable income to the trust. The trust has no deductions that are directly connected with that income. For that same year, the trust has administration expenses (deductible in computing taxable income) of $16,000, resulting in net ordinary income of $44,000. The amount of unrelated business taxable income is computed by taking gross income from an unrelated trade or business and deducting expenses directly connected with carrying on the trade or business, both computed with modifications under section 512(b). Section 512(b)(12) provides a specific deduction of $1,000 in computing the amount of unrelated business taxable income. Under the facts presented in this example, there are no other modifications under section 512(b). The trust, therefore, has unrelated business taxable income of $9,000 ($10,000 minus the $1,000 deduction under section 512(b)(12)). Undistributed ordinary income from prior years is $12,000 and undistributed capital gains from prior years are $50,000. Under the terms of the trust agreement, the trust is required to pay an annuity of $100,000 for year 2007 to the noncharitable beneficiary. Because the trust has unrelated business taxable income of $9,000, the excise tax imposed under section 664(c) is equal to the amount of such unrelated business taxable income, $9,000. The character of the $100,000 distribution to the noncharitable beneficiary is as follows: $56,000 of ordinary income ($44,000 from current year plus $12,000 from prior years), and $44,000 of capital gains. The $9,000 excise tax is allocated to corpus, and does not reduce the amount in any of the categories of income under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. At the beginning of year 2008, the amount of undistributed capital gains is $6,000, and there is no undistributed ordinary income.
During 2007, a charitable remainder annuity trust with a taxable year beginning on January 1, 2007, sells real estate generating gain of $40,000. Because the trust had obtained a loan to finance part of the purchase price of the asset, some of the income from the sale is treated as debt-financed income under section 514 and thus constitutes unrelated business taxable income under section 512. The unrelated debt-financed income computed under section 514 is $30,000. Assuming the trust receives no other income in 2007, the trust will have unrelated business taxable income under section 512 of $29,000 ($30,000 minus the $1,000 deduction under section 512(b)(12)). Except for section 512(b)(12), no other exceptions or modifications under sections 512-514 apply when calculating unrelated business taxable income based on the facts presented in this example. Because the trust has unrelated business taxable income of $29,000, the excise tax imposed under section 664(c) is equal to the amount of such unrelated business taxable income, $29,000. The $29,000 excise tax is allocated to corpus, and does not reduce the amount in any of the categories of income under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Regardless of how the trust's income might be treated under sections 511-514, the entire $40,000 is capital gain for purposes of section 664 and is allocated accordingly to and within the second of the categories of income under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3)
(d) * * *
(2) * * * All taxes imposed by chapter 42 of the Code (including without limitation taxes treated under section 664(c)(2) as imposed by chapter 42) and, for taxable years beginning prior to January 1, 2007, all taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Code for which the trust is liable because it has unrelated business taxable income, shall be allocated to corpus. * * *
26 U.S.C. 7805.
(b) * * *
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS STOCKDALE (DDG 106) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective June 24, 2008 and is applicable beginning 13 June 2008.
Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone: 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
33 U.S.C. 1605.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective June 24, 2008 and is applicable beginning 13 June 2008.
Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone: 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
33 U.S.C. 1605.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area (RNA) in certain waters of the Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D) Canal, within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland, on June 28, 2008. This RNA is necessary to provide for the safety of life, property and the environment. This RNA restricts the movement of vessels throughout the anchorage basin during the Town of Chesapeake City's Canal Day 2008 event.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m. on June 29, 2008.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0315 and are available online at
If you have any questions on this temporary rule, call Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone number (202) 366-9826.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent vessel traffic from transiting the specified waters to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters. Additionally, the RNA should have minimal impact on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels can safely transit through the RNA when authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative and that they are not precluded from using any portion of the waterway except the RNA itself.
For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On the last Saturday in June, thousands of people attend the Town of Chesapeake City's Canal Day outdoor waterfront festival, located adjacent to the C & D Canal anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The event began in 1975 as an arts festival to raise funds for local organizations. Due to the growing presence of visiting boaters in recent years, the event has become increasingly congested. The last Canal Day on June 30, 2007 brought an estimated 400 boats and 10,000 visitors to Chesapeake City, a town with a population of 800. An estimated 325 recreational boats were anchored or moored alongside other boats (rafted). These boats accounted for approximately 600 visitors. Persons on recreational vessels or other water craft began arriving on the Wednesday before the festival, and by that evening, large lines of rafted boats filled the anchorage basin, the size of which is approximately 420 yards in length and 170 yards in width. By Thursday afternoon, two days before Canal Day, the gathering of persons and vessels exceeded a safe limit. On a typical weekend, ten to fifteen boats anchor in the basin. Accidental drownings, personal injuries, boat fires, boat capsizings and sinkings, and boating
On June 28, 2008, the Town of Chesapeake City, Maryland will sponsor an outdoor festival located adjacent to the C & D Canal anchorage basin, at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The planned event is a one-day waterfront festival, held during daytime and nighttime hours. The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet during this event. Due to the need for vessel control before, during and after the scheduled event, vessel traffic will be restricted to provide for the safety of persons and vessels within the anchorage basin and transiting vessels within the C & D Canal.
The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety, and to protect the environment and mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a large gathering of recreational vessels and other watercraft in a confined area with swimmers and others present. This rule proposes to establish a temporary RNA within the C & D Canal anchorage basin, located at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The rule will impact the movement of all persons and vessels in the C & D Canal anchorage basin, and will limit the density of vessels and other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring within the C & D Canal anchorage basin at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, to ensure an open water route remains accessible to law enforcement and emergency personnel during the effective period. Public vessels, and vessels and other watercraft moored to piers or docks located within the anchorage basin, will not contribute to the density determination. Interference with normal port operations is unlikely; however, if required, interference with normal port operations will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
Though the RNA will be in effect for four days, commercial traffic in the C & D Canal anchorage basin is limited, and vessels transiting the C & D Canal may proceed safely around the Regulated Navigation Area. Additionally, the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within the C & D Canal anchorage basin, in Chesapeake City, Maryland, from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m. on June 29, 2008. This temporary RNA will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Though this rule will be in effect for four days, commercial vessel traffic in this area is limited. Although the RNA applies to the entire anchorage basin, traffic would be allowed to pass within the RNA with the permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland. Vessels transiting the C & D Canal may proceed safely around the RNA. Also, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway before the effective period.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of the Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Vessels and other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring within the regulated navigation area are limited, at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore Maryland, to a vessel density that ensures an open water route remains accessible to law enforcement and emergency personnel. Public vessels, and vessels and other watercraft moored directly alongside piers or docks located within the regulated navigation area, will be excluded from consideration in the density assessment.
(2) All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this regulated navigation area, except as authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland.
(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the regulated navigation area must request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore Maryland by telephone at (410) 576-2693 or by marine band radio on VHF-FM Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) on the day of this event, June 28, 2008.
(4) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated navigation area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(5) The operator of any vessel located within or in the immediate vicinity of this regulated navigation area shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
(d)
In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 87 to 99, revised as of July 1, 2007, on page 46, in § 89.6, paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) are reinstated to read as follows;
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains a correction to the final regulations in 43 CFR parts 3000, 3100, 3150, 3200, 3500, 3580, 3600, 3730, 3810, 3830 Oil and Gas Leasing: Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal Management; Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral Materials Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws, which were published in the
The correcting amendment is effective June 24, 2008.
Cynthia L. Ellis, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 202-452-5012.
This correction is necessary because in the 2005 final regulation we inserted a new paragraph (b) in section 3602.31, without changing a subsequent cross-reference to reflect the new paragraph. The current regulations, therefore, have an inaccurate cross-reference. Inserting new paragraph (b) in the 2005 final rule without fixing the cross-reference in paragraph (d) raised the question whether an exception stated in paragraph (d) applies to volume limitations stated in paragraph (c), which was paragraph (b) before the 2005 rule inserted the new paragraph (b). This correction remedies this uncertainty.
Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Public
Government contracts, Hydrocarbons, Mineral royalties, Mines, Phosphate, Potassium, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sodium, Sulfur, Surety bonds.
Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Recreation and recreation areas, Surety bonds.
Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 3101
(d) The volume limitations in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section do not apply to sales in the State of Alaska that BLM determines are needed for construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System or the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section for drill starts, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD results from drill starts being found on the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section during a quality assurance inspection at the final assembly plant. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks from propagating from drill starts in the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section, which could cause a loss of structural integrity of the wing center section and may result in a fuel leak.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, telephone (425) 917-6440; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of drill starts being found on the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center during a quality assurance inspection at the final assembly plant. The drill starts were caused by a manufacturing error during wing assembly. Cracks could propagate from drill starts in the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of structural integrity of the wing center section and may result in a fuel leak.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection of the free flange of the upper and lower stringers of the wing center section for drill starts, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include doing high frequency eddy current (HFEC) open hole inspections for any cracks. The corrective actions include doing the zero-timing procedure at each drill start, oversizing the hole, installing new fasteners if the hole is within the service bulletin tolerance limits, and contacting Boeing for certain repair conditions, as applicable.
Accomplishing certain actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.”
Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007, specifies a detailed inspection and applicable related investigative and corrective actions of the free flange of the upper and lower stringers of the wing center section, this proposed AD would require those actions for only the lower stringers of the wing center section. The lower stringers are the tension surface of the wing box, and therefore are subject to cracking. We do
The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• Using a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 7 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $9,520, or $560 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by August 8, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007.
(d) This proposed AD results from drill starts being found on the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center during a quality assurance inspection at the final assembly plant. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks from propagating from drill starts in the free flange of the wing center section lower stringers, which could cause a loss of structural integrity of the wing center section and may result in a fuel leak.
(e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(f) Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section for any drill start, and do any applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in paragraphs 3.B.2. and 3.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007; except as provided in paragraph (g) of this AD. The applicable related investigative and corrective actions must be done before further flight.
(g) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6440, fax (425) 917-6590 has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks have been found on Frame (FR) 12, left (LH) and right (RH) sides. It has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is the root cause of the cracks.
If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the structural integrity of the aircraft.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0302, dated December 14, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks have been found on Frame (FR) 12, left (LH) and right (RH) sides. It has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is the root cause of the cracks.
If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the structural integrity of the aircraft.
In order to permit an early detection and repair of cracks on FR12, LH and RH sides, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates a one time High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection of FR12.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A330-53-3174 and A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 20 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by July 24, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all manufacturing serial numbers (MSN) from MSN 0489 through 0722 inclusive, and MSN 0725, 0726, 0728, 0730, 0732, and 0734.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks have been found on Frame (FR) 12, left (LH) and right (RH) sides. It has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is the root cause of the cracks.
If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the structural integrity of the aircraft.
In order to permit an early detection and repair of cracks on FR12, LH and RH sides, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates a one time High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection of FR12.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 19,500 total flight cycles or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform a HFEC inspection at the LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) sides of frame 12, in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007, as applicable. If no cracking is found, no further action is required by this AD. Except as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, if any cracking is found, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, as applicable.
(2) If any cracking is found that exceeds the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007, as applicable; or if any cracking is found during any HFEC inspection of the cut-out area; before further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the repair.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(h) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2007-0302, dated December 14, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3174 and A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007, for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During aircraft structure fatigue tests, cracks were found in the wing lower skin stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings. In order to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing lower skin stringers, which could result in fuel leakage and reduced structural integrity of the wing, the referred stringers must be reworked.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2848; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-01-02, effective February 25, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During aircraft structure fatigue tests, cracks were found in the wing lower skin stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings. In order to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing lower skin stringers, which could result in fuel leakage and reduced structural integrity of the wing, the referred stringers must be reworked.
EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 18 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 110 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $158,400, or $8,800 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by July 24, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -100ECJ, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 19000004, 19000006 through 19000028 inclusive, and 19000030 through 19000039 inclusive.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
During aircraft structure fatigue tests, cracks were found in the wing lower skin stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings. In order to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing lower skin stringers, which could result in fuel leakage and reduced structural integrity of the wing, the referred stringers must be reworked.
(f) Unless already done: Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the following actions.
(1) Spot-face the lower wing stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings by changing their run out in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006.
(2) Do a dye-penetrant inspection for cracking of the reworked stringers in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006.
(i) If no cracking is detected: Before further flight, shot-peen the stringer reworked area following the parameters indicated in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006.
(ii) If any cracking is detected: Before further flight, contact the ANAC for repair instructions and repair.
(3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, dated October 10, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2848; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-01-02, effective February 25, 2008, and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006, for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6447; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing, between stringers S-20 and S-21, on both the left and right sides of the airplane. The cracked frames are located between station (STA) 500B and STA 520 on Model 737-300 and -400 series airplanes and between STA 482 and STA 520 on Model 737-500 series airplanes. The cracks at the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole are due to the effect of operating loads in combination with the stress concentration at the 1.04-inch nominal hole. The cracking initiated at the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole and grew towards the inner chord.
We have since received reports of more than fifty cracked frames at the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole on more than 20 airplanes, all either Model 737-300 or 737-500 series airplanes. The airplanes had accumulated between 35,832 and 66,694 total flight cycles.
This type of cracking has occurred at three frame stations on Model 737-300 series airplanes, at one frame station on Model 737-400 series airplanes, and at four stations on Model 737-500 series airplanes. Sixteen airplanes had cracking at multiple frames, and 10 frames had cracking at adjacent frames. Forty-three frames had cracking only at the inboard side of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame inner chord or in the frames and frame reinforcement inner chord. Three of the frames had cracking in the outboard side of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and the frame reinforcement. Two of the frames were severed. Some of the frames had additional cracking at either the standoff/tooling holes or at the 0.50-inch diameter hole positioned below the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole.
Cracking in the fuselage frames at the wire penetration hole intended for wire routing will reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads. Cracking in the frames could result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1279, dated December 18, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing either a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface inspection or HFEC hole/edge inspection for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S-20 and S-21, on both the left and right sides of the airplane. If cracking is found, the service bulletin also describes procedures for related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative action is doing an HFEC inspection for cracking in the 0.50-inch diameter hole and all standoff/tooling holes in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S-19 and S-22. The corrective action is repairing any cracking found and repeating the HFEC inspections. If additional cracking is found, the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions. The service bulletin further describes procedures for a preventative modification for frames on which either the initial or repetitive inspections have been done. The preventative modification terminates the repetitive inspections.
The initial compliance time for the initial inspection is either within 3,000 or 6,000 (but not to exceed 53,000 total flight cycles) flight cycles after release of the service bulletin, depending on the number of total flight cycles on the airplane. The repetitive interval for the HFEC inspection is 14,000 flight cycles. Corrective actions must be done before further flight.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se)
The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to remove damage and repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require removing damage and repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• Using a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 616 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by August 8, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1279, dated December 18, 2007.
(d) This AD results from reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage frames and frame reinforcements, which could reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads, and result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.
(e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(f) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1279, dated December 18, 2007.
(1) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for instructions for removing damage and repairing cracking: Before further flight, remove the damage or repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(3) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as specified by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface inspection or an HFEC hole/edge inspection for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringer S-20 and S-21; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; by accomplishing all
(h) Doing the repair in Part 3 or the preventative modification in Part 4 of the service bulletin terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.
(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack * * * [and] damage to the lower central support fitting * * *.
In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute an unsafe condition.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0276, dated October 26, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, typically elongated holes, migrated bushes [bushings], and/or missing bolts have been reported in-service. In addition damage to the lower central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported.
In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute an unsafe condition.
This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates the repetitive inspection of the lower lateral 80VU fittings for damage and the inspection of the lower central 80VU support for damage and cracking, and the associated corrective actions as necessary with more restrictive actions than defined in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-25A1555 at its original issue.
The new requirements defined in this AD will be introduced in revision 1 of SB A320-25A1555.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; and A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The compliance times for doing the corrective actions are either before further flight, or within 4,500 flight cycles with repetitive inspections at intervals not to exceed 750 flight cycles until the repair is accomplished.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 678 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 82 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,592 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,205,056, or $9,152 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by July 24, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-111, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 34804 has been embodied in production.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, typically elongated holes, migrated bushes [bushings], and/or missing bolts have been reported in-service. In addition, damage to the lower central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported.
In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute an unsafe condition.
This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates the repetitive inspection of the lower lateral 80VU fittings for damage and the inspection of the lower central 80VU
The new requirements defined in this AD will be introduced in revision 1 of SB A320-25A1555.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a special detailed inspection of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings for damage (e.g., broken fitting, missing bolts, migrated bushings, material burr, or rack in contact with the fitting) of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007. Except as provided by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. Replacing the 80VU lower lateral fittings in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007, terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.
(i) If the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings have not been repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.
(ii) If the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings have been repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24,000 flight cycles.
(2) If any damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions (inspection and/or repair) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and timeframes given in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007.
(3) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a special detailed inspection of the 80VU rack lower central support for cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007. Except as provided by paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If the 80VU rack lower central support has not been repaired or replaced in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007; repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i)(A) or (f)(3)(i)(B) of this AD, as applicable.
(A) For airplanes on which the lower central support has accumulated more than 30,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: At intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
(B) For airplanes on which the lower central support has accumulated 30,000 total flight cycles or fewer as of the effective date of this AD: At intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, without exceeding 30,750 total flight cycles for the first repetitive inspection.
(ii) If the 80VU rack lower central support has been repaired or replaced in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007; repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24,000 flight cycles.
(4) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, do the action in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If the crack length is more than 40 mm on the front or the rear sheet of the lower central support, as shown in Figure 3, Sheet 2 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007, or if any crack is found on the upper sheet of the lower central support as shown in Figure 3, Sheet 3 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007: Before further flight, repair or replace the lower central support in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007; as applicable.
(ii) If the crack length is 40 mm or less on the front or the rear sheet, as specified in Figure 3, Sheet 2 of Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007: Within 20 months or 4,500 flight cycles after the crack finding, whichever occurs first, repair or replace the lower central support in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007, as applicable. Until the repair or replacement of the lower central support is accomplished, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2007-0276, dated October 26, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007, for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During fatigue tests (EF3) on the A340-600, damages were found in longitudinal doubler
Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. doubler thickness) [of the] A330-200/-300 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded [there was] potential impact on [the airplanes specified in the] applicability.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0284, dated November 12, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During fatigue tests (EF3) on the A340-600, damages were found in longitudinal doubler at VTP (vertical tail plane) attachment cutout between Frame (FR) 80 and FR86. This damage occurred between 58341 and 72891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC).
Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. doubler thickness) [of the] A330-200/-300 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded [there was] potential impact on [the airplanes specified in the] applicability.
[T]o allow early detection of cracks, which could [prevent] possible crack propagation and consequently maintain the structural integrity of the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates an inspection program [for cracking] of this area using a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) method, and a modification to improve the upper shell structure.
Airbus has issued the service bulletins specified in the following table. The compliance times in paragraph 1.E.(2) of the service bulletins range from 14,200 total flight cycles through 27,900 total flight cycles (for the initial inspection); from 1,700 flight cycles or 11,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first, through 4,600 flight cycles or 14,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first (for the repetitive inspection intervals); and from 10,700 total flight cycles through 14,200 total flight cycles (for the modification); depending upon airplane model and weight variant. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 26 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 202 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by July 24, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all serial numbers; on which Airbus modification 44205 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus modification 52974 or 53223 has been embodied in production.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
During fatigue tests (EF3) on the A340-600, damages were found in longitudinal doubler at VTP (vertical tail plane) attachment cutout between Frame (FR) 80 and FR86. This damage occurred between 58341 and 72891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC).
Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. doubler thickness) [of the] A330-200/-300 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded [there was] potential impact on [the airplanes specified in the] applicability.
[T]o allow early detection of cracks, which could [prevent] possible crack propagation and consequently maintain the structural integrity of the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates an inspection program [for cracking] of this area using a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) method, and a modification to improve the upper shell structure.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) For Airbus Model A330-300 and A340-300 series airplanes, except Model A340-300 weight variant (WV) 027 airplanes: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, perform a HFEC inspection of the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3168 or A340-53-4174, both dated September 19, 2007, as applicable.
(i) If no crack is detected, repeat the inspection thereafter within the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3168 or A340-53-4174, as applicable.
(ii) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by this AD: Before next flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do applicable repairs.
(iii) Doing the modification of the upper shell structure in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3159 or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4165, both dated September 19, 2007, as applicable, ends the inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(2) Do the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD at the later of the compliance times specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Within the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3168 or A340-53-4174, both dated September 19, 2007, as applicable.
(ii) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3) At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), and (f)(3)(iii) of this AD or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86 (including doing eddy current inspections for cracking of certain fastener rows and applicable corrective actions) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3160, dated July 9, 2007, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4172, dated July 10, 2007, as applicable. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(i) For Model A330-200 airplanes, WV 020 through WV 027: Prior to the accumulation of 13,500 total flight cycles.
(ii) For Model A330-200 airplanes, WV 050 through WV 055: Prior to the accumulation of 10,700 total flight cycles or 59,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(iii) For Model A340-300 airplanes, WV 027: Prior to the accumulation of 14,200 total flight cycles.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Although the MCAI allows further flight after cracks are found during compliance with the required action, this AD requires that you repair the crack(s) before further flight.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2007-0284, dated November 12, 2007, and the service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 22, 2008.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102122-08), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102122-08), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, John H. Seibert, (202) 622-3860; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations.
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will affect primarily large multi-national United States corporations that own a significant interest in foreign corporations that acquire certain United States property in a transaction subject to the regulations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department continue to consider, outside the context of section 956, the appropriate basis of stock or obligations issued by a transferor in the hands of the transferee as determined under section 362. The IRS and the Treasury Department are also considering whether any additional rules are necessary or appropriate to coordinate the section 956 basis
The principal author of these regulations is John H. Seibert, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
(e) * * * (1) * * * See § 1.956-1T(e)(6) for a special rule for determining amounts attributable to United States property acquired as the result of certain nonrecognition transactions.
(e)(5) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-1(e)(5) is the same as the text for § 1.956-1T(e)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(e)(6) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-1(e)(6) is the same as the text for § 1.956-1T(e)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(f) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-1(f) is the same as the text for § 1.956-1T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; opening of public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Utah regulatory program (hereinafter, the “Utah program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (“SMCRA” or “the Act”). Utah proposes additions and revisions to its rules regarding Division of Oil Gas and Mining (“DOGM” or “Division”) requests for additional information required to complete the review of a coal mining permit application, change, or renewal; the casing and sealing of underground openings; the definition of “intermittent stream” and related performance standards. Utah intends to revise its program to clarify Division responsibilities and improve operational efficiency.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., m.d.t. July 24, 2008. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on July 21, 2008. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., m.d.t. on July 9, 2008.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
James F. Fulton,
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of
By letter dated May 28, 2008, Utah sent us a proposed amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
The provisions of the Utah Administrative Rules proposed for revision and addition are: (1) Requests for Additional Information, R645-300-131.300 (addition of new section); (2) Sealing of Underground Openings, R645-301-551, R645-301-631, and R645-301-765; and (3) Intermittent Streams, R645-100-200, R645-301-535.210, R645-301-535.223, R645-301-731.610, R645-301-742.320 through R645-301-742.324 R645-301-742.330 through R645-301-742.333, and R645-301-742.412.
Specifically, Utah proposes to add a provision requiring the Division to issue a written decision and justification if additional information is required to complete the review of a coal mining permit application, change, or renewal. Utah also proposes to expand its rules pertaining to the sealing of underground openings to include additional specifications for sealing drill holes and to reference other regulations which contain more specific guidance. Additionally, Utah proposes to adopt a more hydrologically accurate definition of “intermittent stream”. In order to remain no less effective than Federal regulations, numerous performance standards are proposed for revision due to this proposed definition change.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Utah program.
If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in the electronic docket for this rulemaking at
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
This rule will not impose an unfunded Mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend its regulations in 43 CFR part 3500 for leasing of solid minerals other than coal and oil shale to distinguish fringe acreage lease requirements from lease modification requirements, and to describe acceptable justifications for a lease modification. The proposed rule would also identify changes in the associated procedural requirements and update the filing fees. The proposed changes are based on statutory authorities, which authorize the BLM to issue regulations for leasing of minerals and to charge for administrative processing costs, and on policy guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring the BLM to charge these fees.
Send your comments on this proposed rule to the BLM on or before August 25, 2008. The BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date in making its decision on the final rule.
You may mail written comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240,
George Brown, Geologist, Solid Minerals Division (WO-320), Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop-501LS, 1849 “C” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; or by telephone at (202) 452-7765. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
Please submit e-mail comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “
You may examine documents pertinent to this proposed rulemaking at the L Street address.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:
• You may mail comments to Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240,
• You may deliver comments to Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
• You may access and comment on the notice at the Federal eRulemaking Portal by following the instructions at that site (see
Please make your comments as specific as possible by confining them to issues for which comments are sought in this notice, and explain the bases for your comments.
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.
The BLM may not necessarily consider or include in the Administrative Record for the notice comments that we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under
Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
At the time of leasing, the BLM proposes lease boundaries that conform as nearly as possible to the orientation of known mineral deposits. Due to lack of detailed information about the deposit when a lease is issued, a lease boundary may need refinement. Following leasing, for example, additional exploration by the lessee may identify extensions of the deposit onto adjoining land. In addition, new engineering information may determine that lease boundaries are not situated for optimal development and recovery of the mineral deposit within the lease. In some cases, this has required placing overburden onto lands containing mineral deposits, precluding maximum recovery of the minerals and shortening the operating life of some mines. The BLM uses lease modifications to adjust lease boundaries and make corrections to accommodate new information. These changes are infrequent and typically involve relatively small areas. Current regulations treat fringe acreage leases and lease modifications in the same way, in that in both cases there must be a mineral deposit under the proposed additional acreage to be added to the primary leasehold. It is appropriate that a fringe acreage lease, as a new lease, should be required to show the presence of a mineral deposit within the proposed lease boundaries. By contrast, since a modification is an adjustment to an existing lease that already contains a known mineral deposit, the requirement in the existing regulations for the presence of a mineral deposit in the modification area should not be applicable to adjustment of the existing lease boundary. Therefore, the proposed rule would amend this provision with regard to lease modifications.
The proposed rule also incorporates an update to the filing fee for lease modification and fringe acreage lease applications based on cost recovery rules published in the
The BLM is proposing to amend the regulation that requires that the acreage proposed to be added to an existing lease in a lease modification application contain an extension of the mineral deposit. The amendment acknowledges that an existing lease already contains a known deposit, and provides for modification where the configuration of the lease boundary has been found to be inadequate for recovery of the previously leased mineral deposit. Under circumstances where there is no known deposit of the same mineral on the additional acreage, the proposed rule would require that the acreage to be added is necessary to achieve recovery of the mineral deposit on the pre-existing Federal lease and, had the acreage been included in the Federal lease at the time of the Federal lease's issuance, such inclusion would have produced a reasonably compact lease. This is in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, which requires such compactness. In substance, the proposed rule recognizes that, since the additional acreage could have been included at the time of lease issuance even though it did not contain a known mineral deposit, it may now be included as a modification to the pre-existing lease. This change provides for making adjustments to reconfigure lease boundaries for better accommodation of development based on new information on the location and orientation of deposits and extraction areas. This approach provides potential cost savings to lessees and increased returns to the United States from maximum recovery of leased mineral deposits. This is a minor change in the regulations that would apply in limited circumstances. The BLM consulted with the Forest Service in the development of the proposed rule.
The principal reason for this amendment is to facilitate the process of allowing a modification to add acreage to a lease. Under the proposed rule, the BLM would allow a lease modification:
(1) To recognize new information about the extent of the deposit to avoid bypassing reserves that could not be independently developed;
(2) To provide space for placement of overburden and other waste rock materials to facilitate maximum recovery of the mineral deposit; and/or
(3) To provide space for other facilities needed to recover the deposit, including ore stockpiles, topsoil stockpiles, haul and/or access roads,
All leases necessarily include some nonmineral acreage. Lease boundaries are based on the location of deposits that may not be fully identified at the time of lease issuance. Items (2) and (3) already take place on existing leases but can be constrained because the lease orientation and lease boundaries may not be optimally oriented to the deposits to provide space for these activities. For example, due to the space limitations caused by orientation of the deposit relative to the lease boundary, it may be necessary to temporarily stockpile ore on an unmined portion of a deposit. This interferes with mining efficiency and increases costs. It blocks access to the deposit, reduces recovery, and requires handling and hauling the stockpile multiple times as the deposit is mined. Readjustment of the lease boundary to better conform to the deposit orientation could provide for better utilization of the lease acreage for the overall mine operation.
Subpart 3516 provides for use permits for ancillary operations for phosphate leases (up to 80 acres) and sodium leases (up to 40 acres). Use permits are not appropriate for several reasons. Lease boundary readjustment provides for more efficient utilization of leased acreage and more space in the area of the greatest need immediately adjacent to the operations. Readjustment can provide more space for operations in a compact configuration than a use permit by making more effective use of the acres that are leased and minimizing the additional acres needed. Use permits may not provide enough acreage for all lease operations. Also, BLM use permit provisions are limited to public lands and do not apply to national forest lands.
This document is not a significant rule and the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. We have made the assessments required by E.O. 12866 and the results appear below.
• The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Mining companies rarely seek lease modifications. From FY2001 through FY2006, there were only 9 lease modifications out of 522 active leases. This regulation change is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the number of modifications. Although the BLM expects few modifications, the likely economic impacts from an individual lease modification can be illustrated in the following example. In one recent lease modification, one company employed about 210 workers with annual wages of about $18.7 million. The modification extended the mine's life by 2 to 3 years, thereby extending the wage earnings for those 210 workers, and producing an additional $4 to 6 million in royalties for the Federal Government.
• The rule will not create a serious inconsistency with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will be consistent with the current practices of the BLM and the Forest Service for operations on leases, which provide for consultation between the agencies before the BLM authorizes a lease modification, and will extend those practices to the additional lands in modified leases. It will not change the relationships of the BLM to other agencies and their actions. The proposed rule will allow a lease modification to increase the size or shape of the lease, providing more acreage for lease operations. Procedures for review and approval of all lease operations, including mining and reclamation plans, development of mitigation measures, and the associated reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, will remain the same. Potential activities on the leases will remain the same. The effect of this rule is merely to provide more acreage to perform those operations on existing leases.
• The rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule does not address any of these programs.
• The rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For the purposes of this section a “small entity” is an individual, limited partnership, or small company, at “arm's length” from the control of any parent companies, with fewer than 500 employees. This definition accords with Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
• This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. As explained above, lease modifications constitute a small part of solid non-energy mineral leasing activity and most of those are accomplished under existing regulations. The proposed rule is only expected to involve boundary adjustments at a few leases, and the associated economic effects:
• Will be less than $100 million annually;
• Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
• Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
• The rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule does not address any of these programs.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The changes proposed in this rule would not
Under the criteria in E.O.12630, this rule does not have takings implications. This rule does not substantially change BLM policy. Nothing in this rule has any effect on private property interests, and therefore nothing in the rule constitutes a taking. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. This rule does not change the role of or responsibilities among Federal, state, and local governmental entities, nor does it relate to the structure and role of states or have direct, substantive, or significant effects on states.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(1) Does not unduly burden the judicial system, and
(2) Meets the criteria of sections 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(3) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. Because this rule does not make significant substantive changes in the regulations and does not specifically involve Indian reservation lands, we believe that relations with Indians, Indian tribes, and tribal governments will be unaffected and no consultation is needed for this rule. Consultation would take place for any lease modifications that may be proposed. Lands within Indian Reservations, except the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, Hillcreek Extension, State of Utah, are closed to the operation of the Mineral Leasing Act. Under Public Law 440 (Hill Creek Extension), the boundaries of the Uintah-Ouray Reservation were extended to include the surface of some public domain lands, but those lands do not contain any known mineral resources or leasing operations that are subject to these regulations and are unaffected by this change.
The BLM has determined that this proposed rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), is not required.
The BLM has determined that any environmental effects that this proposed rule may have are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and any actions authorized by the rule would be subject to the NEPA process on a case-by-case basis. See 516 DM2, Appendix I, Item 1.10. In limited circumstances, this regulation will provide a limited amount of acreage within the lease boundary for operations to take place. The factual situation at each lease area is different. Specific proposals for modifications will be reviewed under NEPA and evaluated to identify the potential impacts associated with the proposed modifications and any appropriate mitigation, and the decisions about what operations will be allowed will be made on the basis of those analyses.
Therefore, the proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 2.3A and 516 DM 2, Appendix I, Item 1.10, and does not meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusion listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term “categorical exclusion” means a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required.
Because the proposed promulgation of this rule would not itself approve any lease modification, it would have no significant impacts on the environment and would not have a significant impact on any of the following critical elements of the human environment as defined in Appendix 5 of the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-1790-1): air quality, areas of critical environmental concern, cultural resources, Native American religious concerns, threatened or endangered species, hazardous or solid waste, water quality, prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, riparian zones, wild and scenic rivers, environmental justice, and wilderness. The lease modifications that are authorized would be analyzed in EAs or EISs, and, if approved, they would incorporate site specific mitigation measures in both the modification approval and the mining/reclamation plan. This proposed rule does not change this, but makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, proponents of lease modifications do not bear the burden of showing that the land contains deposits of the minerals subject to the lease.
In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. It will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies. The proposed rule would reduce energy requirements somewhat by facilitating efforts by lessees to keep operations compact. Thus, transportation required for materials within the mining operation may be reduced, given that operations would be conducted on adjacently located properties. Accordingly, we anticipate that this may reduce fuel consumption from haulage during operations. By facilitating maximum recovery of mineral deposits from leases, the proposed rule would extend mine life, allowing the existing infrastructure to be used for a longer
We are required by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods specified in the
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule:
• Would not impede facilitating cooperative conservation;
• Would take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources;
• Would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and
• Would provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
The principal author of this rule is George Brown, Geologist, Division of Solid Minerals, assisted by Ted Hudson, Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, BLM.
Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities stated below, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3500 as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. Appendix).
2. Amend § 3501.10 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f) “Lease modifications” add adjacent acreage to a Federal lease. The acreage to be added:
(1) Contains known deposits of the same mineral that can be mined only as part of the mining operation on the original Federal lease; or
(2) Has the following characteristics-
(i) Does not contain known deposits of the same mineral; and
(ii) Will be used for surface activities that are necessary in furtherance of recovery of the mineral deposit on the original Federal lease; and
(iii) Had the acreage been included in the original Federal lease at the time of the Federal lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact.
3. Amend § 3510.12 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and by adding paragraph (d), to read as follows:
(b) Include a non-refundable filing fee as provided in § 3000.12, Table 1, of this chapter (the fee may be found under “Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (Part 3500)”). You must also make an advance rental payment in accordance with the rental rate for the mineral commodity you are seeking. If you want to modify an existing lease, the BLM will base the rental payment on the rate in effect for the lease being modified in accordance with § 3504.15.
(c) Your fringe acreage lease application must:
(1) Show the serial number of the lease if the lands specified in your application adjoin an existing Federal lease;
(2) Contain a complete and accurate description of the lands desired;
(3) Show that the mineral deposit specified in your application extends from your adjoining lease or from adjoining private lands you own or control; and
(4) Include proof that you own or control the mineral deposit in the adjoining lands if they are not under a Federal lease.
(d) Your lease modification application must:
(1) Show the serial number of your Federal lease that you seek to modify;
(2) Contain a complete and accurate description of the lands desired that adjoin the Federal lease you seek to modify; and
(3) Show that—
(i) The adjoining acreage to be added contains known deposits of the same mineral deposit that can be mined only as part of the mining operations on the original Federal lease; or
(ii) As an alternative, show that—
(A) The acreage to be added does not contain known deposits of the same mineral deposit; and
(B) The adjoining acreage will be used for surface activities that are necessary for the recovery of the mineral deposit on the original Federal lease, and
(C) Had the acreage been included in the original Federal lease at the time of that lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact.
4. Amend § 3510.15 by revising paragraph (e), redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (g) and (h), respectively, by adding new paragraph (f), and by revising redesignated paragraph (h), to read as follows:
(e) The lands for which you applied for a fringe acreage lease lack sufficient reserves of the mineral resource to warrant independent development;
(f)(1) The lands for which you applied for a lease modification contain known deposits of the same mineral deposit that can be mined only as part of the mining operations on the original Federal lease; or
(2)(i) The acreage to be added does not contain known deposits of the same mineral; and
(ii) The acreage to be added will be used for surface activities that are
(iii) Had the acreage added by the modification been included in the original Federal lease at the time of that lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact
(h) You meet the qualification requirements for holding a lease described in subpart 3502 of this chapter and the new or modified lease will not cause you to exceed the acreage limitations described in § 3503.37.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise language pertaining to requirements for contract administration and audit services.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 25, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2008-G512 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Jeritta Parnell at (202) 501-4082, or by e-mail at
The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update the text addressing GSAR 542.1107, Production Surveillance and Reporting, Subpart 542.15, Contractor Performance Information, and the GSAR clause at 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments. This proposed rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) rewrite initiative. The initiative was undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM so as to maintain consistency with the FAR and implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can use when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) as well as internal agency acquisition policy.
GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, GSA will publish it in the
This proposed rule covers the rewrite of GSAR Part 542. The proposed rule revises GSAM Part 542 to update the text addressing GSAR Subpart 542.1107, Production Surveillance and Reporting, Subpart 542.15, Contractor Performance Information, and the GSAR clause at 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments. The language in the contract clause at 542.1107, is revised to add emphasis to the contracting officer’s responsibilities. The GSAR clause at 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments, is revised to update information about the cited GSA office. The language in GSAR Subpart 542.15, Contractor Performance Information, is reorganized and removed from inclusion in the GSAR. This is guidance to contracting officers, and not requirements for contractors.
There were two public comments received in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. One commenter requested that specific GSA guidelines be applied to the timeframe for novation and name changes by the contracting officer. The Agency did not agree. This suggestion is not necessary. The Agency believes that the FAR coverage is detailed enough to cover all aspects of novation and name changes. The language provided in the GSAM is guidance for contracting officers, and not requirements for contractors. The second commenter stated that the FAR is substantially more specific than the GSAM. The Agency agrees. The GSAM only supplements the FAR.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. However, the proposed changes to the GSAR do not impose additional information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 542 and 552 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 542 and 552 revised to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
2. Revise section 542.1107 to read as follows:
The contracting officer shall insert 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments, in solicitations and indefinite quantity and requirements contracts for Stock or Special Order Program items. The clause may be used in indefinite delivery definite quantity contracts for Stock or Special Order Program items when close monitoring is necessary because numerous shipments are involved.
3. Remove section 542.1503-71.
4. Amend section 552.242-70 by—
a. Revising the date of the clause;
b. Removing from paragraph (a) “FQC” and adding “QVOC” in its place, respectively; and
c. Revising paragraph (b).
The revised text reads as follows:
STATUS REPORT OF ORDERS AND SHIPMENTS (DATE)
(b) A copy of GSA Form 1678 will be forwarded to the Contractor with the contract. Additional copies of the form, if needed, may be reproduced by the Contractor.
(End of clause)
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration.
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise GSAM language pertaining to requirements for contract modifications.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 25, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2008-G513 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
For clarification regarding content, please contact Ms. Jeritta Parnell at (202) 501-4082. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, please contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2008-G513.
The GSA is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise the prescriptions for clauses included in 543.205, Contract clauses. The associated clauses located in 552.243 are amended to delete the clause at 552.243-70, Pricing of Adjustments, to revise the clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, and to relocate the clause at 552.243-72, Modifications (Multiple Award Schedule) to GSAR 552.238.
This proposed rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) rewrite initiative. The initiative was undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM so as to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can use when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the GSAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy.
The GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, GSA will publish it in the
This proposed rule revises GSAR 543.205, Contract clauses, and associated clauses in GSAR 552.243. The information in GSAR 543.205, Contract clauses, is revised to remove 543.205(a)(1) and 543.205(b) and re-numbered accordingly. The information in 543.205(a)(1) is deleted. This clause prescription is no longer necessary. The information in 543.205(b) is relocated to Part 538. The prescription for the clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustment, is revised to include the clause title for FAR 52.243-4, Changes. The clause at 552.243-70, Pricing of Adjustments, is deleted. Information formerly contained in this clause is now contained in the revised clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments. The clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, is revised to clarify costs, overhead, profit, and proposal preparation costs. The clause at 552.243-72, Modifications, (Multiple Award Schedule) is relocated to GSAR Part 538.
There were three public comments received in response to the “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” One commenter requested that the “Overhead, Profit, and Commission”
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The GSA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the GSAM do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 543 and 552 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 543 and 552 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
2. Revise section 543.205 to read as follows:
The contracting officer shall insert 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, in solicitations and contracts containing FAR 52.243-4, Changes.
3. Remove section 552.243-70.
4. Revise section 552.243-71 to read as follows:
As prescribed in 543.205, insert the following clause:
EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS (DATE)
(a) This clause governs the determination of equitable adjustments to which the Contractor may be entitled under the “Changes” clause prescribed by FAR 52.243-4, the “Differing Site Conditions” clause prescribed by FAR 52.236-2, and any other provision of this contract allowing entitlement to an equitable adjustment. This clause does not govern determination of the Contractor’s relief allowable under the “Suspension of Work” clause prescribed by FAR 52.242-14.
(b) At the written request of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall submit a proposal, in accordance with the requirements set forth herein, for an equitable adjustment to the contract for changes or other conditions that may entitle a Contractor to an equitable adjustment. If the Contractor deems an oral or written order to be a change to the contract, it shall promptly submit to the Contracting Officer a proposal for equitable adjustment attributable to such deemed change. The change shall also conform to the requirements set forth herein.
(c) The proposal shall be submitted within the time specified in the “Changes” clause, or such other time as may reasonably be required by the Contracting Officer. In the case of a proposal submitted based on the “Differing Site Conditions” clause, the notice requirement of that clause shall be met.
(d) Proposals for equitable adjustments, including no costs requests for adjustment of the contract’s required completion date, shall include a detailed breakdown of the following elements, as applicable:
(1) Direct Costs.
(2) Markups.
(3) Change to the time for completion specified in the contract.
(e)
(1) Material cost broken down by trade, supplier, material description, quantity of material units, and unit cost (including all manufacturing burden associated with material fabrication and cost of delivery to site, unless separately itemized).
(2) Labor cost broken down by trade, employer, occupation, quantity of labor hours, and burdened hourly labor rate, together with itemization of applied labor burdens (exclusive of employer’s overhead, profit, and any labor cost burdens carried in employer’s overhead rate).
(3) Cost of equipment required to perform the work, identified with material to be placed or operation to be performed.
(4) Cost of preparation and/or revision to shop drawings and other submittals with detail set forth in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this clause.
(5) Delivery costs, if not included in material unit costs.
(6) Time-related costs not separately identified as direct costs, and not included in the Contractor’s or subcontractors’ overhead rates, as specified in paragraph (g).
(7) Other direct costs.
(f) Marked-up costs of subcontractors below the second tier may be treated as other direct costs of a second tier subcontractor, unless the Contracting Officer requires a detailed breakdown under paragraph (i) of this clause.
(g)
(1) Increases or decreases to a firm’s time-related costs shall be allowed only if such increase or decrease necessarily and exclusively results from the change or other condition giving rise to entitlement to an equitable adjustment.
(2) The Contractor shall not be entitled to an extension of time or recovery of its own time-related costs except to the extent that such change or other condition necessarily and exclusively causes its duration of performance to extend beyond the completion date specified in the contract.
(3) Costs may be characterized as time-related costs only if they are incurred solely to support performance of this contract and the increase or decrease in such costs is solely dependent upon the duration of a firm’s performance of work.
(4) Costs may not be characterized as time-related costs if they are included in the calculation of a firm’s overhead rate.
(5) Equitable adjustment of time and time-related costs shall not be allowed unless the analysis supporting the proposal complies with provisions specified elsewhere in this contract regarding the Contractor’s project schedule.
(h)
(1) Overhead rates shall be negotiated, and may be subject to audit and adjustment.
(2) Profit rates shall be negotiated, but shall not exceed ten percent, unless entitlement to a higher rate of profit may be demonstrated.
(3) The Contractor and its subcontractors shall not be allowed overhead or profit on the overhead or profit received by a subcontractor, except to the extent that the subcontractor’s costs are properly included in other direct costs as specified in paragraph (f) of this clause.
(4) Overhead rates shall be applied to the direct costs of work performed by a firm, and shall not be allowed on the direct costs of work performed by a subcontractor to that firm at any tier except as set forth in paragraphs (h)(6) and (h)(7) of this clause.
(5) Profit rates shall be applied to the sum of a firm’s direct costs and the overhead allowed on the direct costs of work performed by that firm.
(6) Overhead and profit shall be allowed on the direct costs of work performed by a subcontractor within two tiers of a firm at rates equal to only fifty percent of the overhead and profit rates negotiated pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this clause for that firm, but not in excess of ten percent when combined.
(7) Overhead and profit shall not be allowed on the direct costs of a subcontractor more than two tiers below the firm claiming overhead and profit for subcontractor direct costs.
(8) If changes to a Contractor’s or subcontractor’s bond or insurance premiums are computed as a percentage of the gross change in contract value, markups for bond and insurance shall be applied after all overhead and profit is applied. Bond and insurance rates shall not be applied if the associated costs are included in the calculation of a firm’s overhead rate.
(9) No markup shall be applied to a firm’s costs other than those specified herein.
(i) At the request of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall provide such other information as may be reasonably necessary to allow evaluation of the proposal. If the proposal includes significant costs incurred by a subcontractor below the second tier, the Contracting Officer may require the same detail for those costs as required for the first two tiers of subcontractors, and markups shall be applied to these subcontractor costs in accordance with paragraph (h) of this clause.
(j)
(1) A copy of the contract or other documentation identifying the consultant or firm, the scope of the services performed, the manner in which the consultant or firm was to be compensated, and if compensation was paid on an hourly basis, the fully burdened and marked-up hourly rates for the services provided.
(2) If compensation were paid on an hourly basis, documentation of the quantity of hours worked, including descriptions of the activities for which the hours were billed, and applicable rates.
(3) Written proof of payment of the costs requested. The sufficiency of the proof shall be determined by the Contracting Officer.
(k) Proposal preparation costs shall be allowed only if—
(1) The nature and complexity of the change or other condition giving rise to entitlement to an equitable adjustment warrants estimating, scheduling, or other effort not reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract award;
(2) Proposed costs are not included in a firm’s time-related costs or overhead rate; and
(3) Proposed costs were incurred prior to a Contracting Officer’s unilateral determination of an equitable adjustment under the conditions set forth in paragraph (o) of this clause, or were incurred prior to the time the request for equitable adjustment otherwise became a matter in dispute.
(l) Proposed direct costs, markups, and proposal preparation costs shall be allowable in the determination of an equitable adjustment only if they are reasonable and otherwise consistent with the contract cost principles and procedures set forth in Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR part 31) in effect on the date of this contract. Characterization of costs as direct costs, time-related costs, or overhead costs must be consistent with the requesting firm’s accounting practices on other work under this contract and other contracts.
(m) If the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the Government’s interest that the Contractor proceed with a change before negotiation of an equitable adjustment is completed, the Contracting Officer may order the Contractor to proceed on the basis of a unilateral modification to the contract increasing or decreasing the contract price by an amount to be determined later. Such increase or decrease shall not exceed the increase or decrease proposed by the Contractor.
(n) If the parties cannot agree to an equitable adjustment, the Contracting Officer may determine the equitable adjustment unilaterally.
(o) The Contractor shall not be entitled to any proposal preparation costs incurred subsequent to the date of a unilateral determination or denial of the request if the Contracting Officer issues a unilateral determination or denial under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The Contractor fails to submit a proposal within the time required by this contract or such time as may reasonably be required by the Contracting Officer.
(2) The Contractor fails to submit additional information requested by the Contracting Officer within the time reasonably required.
(3) Agreement to an equitable adjustment cannot be reached within 60 days of submission of the Contractor’s proposal or receipt of additional requested information, despite the Contracting Officer’s diligent efforts to negotiate the equitable adjustment.
(End of clause)
5. Remove section 552.243-72.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Proposed rule; notice of initial determination.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has petitioned for approval of alternate requirements governing certain aspects of the Federal odometer law. NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed alternate requirements are generally consistent with the purposes of the applicable portion of the federal odometer disclosure law. Accordingly, NHTSA preliminarily grants Virginia's petition. This is not a final agency action.
Comments are due no later than July 24, 2008.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA-2008-0116] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Andrew DiMarsico, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-5263) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
In 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act), among other things, to protect purchasers of motor vehicles from odometer fraud.
To assist purchasers to know the true mileage of a motor vehicle, Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act required the transferor of a motor vehicle to provide written disclosure to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.
There were shortcomings in the odometer provisions of the Cost Savings Act. Among others, in some states, the odometer disclosure statement was not on the title; it was a separate document that could easily be altered or discarded and did not travel with the title. Consequently, it did not effectively provide information to purchasers about the vehicle's mileage or substantially curb odometer fraud. In some states, the title was not on tamper-proof paper. The problems were compounded by title washing thought states with ineffective controls. In addition, there were considerable misstatements of mileage on vehicles that had formerly been leased vehicles, as well as on used vehicles sold at wholesale auctions.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Truth in Mileage Act (TIMA), which added provisions to the Cost Savings Act.
Among other requirements, TIMA precluded the licensing of vehicles, the ownership of which was transferred, for use in any State unless the several requirements were met by the transferee and transferor. The transferee, in submitting an application for a title, is required to provide the transferor's (seller's) title, and if that title contains a space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage, that information must be included and the statement must be signed and dated by the transferor. TIMA also precluded the licensing of vehicles, the ownership of which was transferred, for use in any State unless the several titling requirements were met. Titles must be printed by a secure printing process or other secure process. They must indicate the mileage and contain space for the transferee to disclose the mileage in a subsequent transfer. As to leased vehicles, the Secretary was required to publish rules requiring the lessor of vehicles with leases to advise its lessee that the lessee is required by law to disclose the vehicle's mileage to the lessor upon the lessor's transfer of ownership. In addition, TIMA required that auction companies establish and maintain records on vehicles sold at the auction, including the name of the most recent owner of the vehicle, the name of the buyer, the vehicle identification number and the odometer reading on the date the auction took possession of the vehicle.
TIMA further provided that its provisions on mileage statements for licensing of vehicles (and rules involving leased vehicles) apply in a State, unless the State has in effect alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements approved by the Secretary.
In 1988, Congress amended section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act to permit the use of a secure power of attorney in circumstances where the title was held by a lienholder. The Secretary was required to publish a rule, consistent with the purposes of the Act and the need to facilitate enforcement thereof, providing for the mileage disclosure, the transferor to keep a copy of the power of attorney, and for the original power of attorney to be submitted to the State.
In 1994, in the course of the 1994 recodification of various laws pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, was repealed. It was reenacted and recodified without substantive change.
As discussed above, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA in 1986, contains a specific provision on approval of State programs. NHTSA “shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the [NHTSA] determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e) as the case may be.” (Subsections 408(d), (e) of the Costs Savings Act were recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c)). Subsection 408(f)(2) of the Costs Savings Act, recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(d). In light of this provision, we now turn to our interpretation of the purposes of these subsections, as germane to Virginia's petition.
A purpose of TIMA was to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure precluded odometer fraud. To prevent odometer fraud, which was facilitated in some States by disclosure statements that were separate from titles, under TIMA the disclosure must be contained on the title provided to the transferee and not on a separate document. Related to this, the title was required to contain space for the disclosures. The Senate Report associated with TIMA noted that Federal law had not specified the form in which the odometer reading disclosure must be made.
Another purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the title a condition of the application for a title and a requirement for the title issued by the State. Prior to TIMA, odometer fraud was facilitated by the ability of transferees to apply for titles without presenting the transferor's title with the disclosure. To eliminate or significantly reduce abuses associated with this lack of controls, TIMA required that any vehicle, the ownership of which is transferred, may not be licensed unless the application for the title is accompanied by the title of such vehicle. Thus, “in the case of an application for a new motor vehicle certificate of title, if the prior owner's title certificate contains a space for the disclosure of the mileage, when the title certificate is submitted to the State * * *, it shall contain a statement, signed and dated by the prior owner, of the mileage required to be disclosed by the prior owner.”
TIMA also sought to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. In furtherance of these purposes, in the context of paper titles, under TIMA the title must be set forth by means of a secure printing process. It could also be set forth by other secure process that might evolve in the future. As noted in the legislative history, because the title could be printed through a non-secure process, persons could alter it or launder it.
Another purpose was to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record and trail was to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism through which odometer tampering can be traced and violators prosecuted. The creation of a paper trail would improve the enforcement process by providing evidence of fraudulent transfers, including by consumers and the individuals engaged in such practices. More specifically, the paper trail would document transfers and create evidence showing the incidence of rollbacks. Under TIMA, as part of the paper trail, the title must include a space for the mileage of the vehicle. New applications for titles must include a mileage disclosure statement signed by the prior owner of the vehicle. There would be a permanent record on the vehicle's title at the place where the vehicle is titled, usually the State motor vehicle administration. This record could be checked by subsequent owners or law enforcement officials, who would have a critical snapshot of the vehicle's mileage at every transfer, which is the fundamental link in the paper trail for enforcement. These provisions were aimed at providing purchasers and law
Moreover, the general purpose of TIMA was to protect consumers by assuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. The TIMA amendments were directed at resolving shortcomings in the Cost Savings Act.
Virginia proposes to allow parties to transfer title through the Internet by electronic means and to maintain an electronic record of the title in the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (VADMV) system. The proposal permits the transferee to request a hard copy of the title, printed by a secure printed process. While it is not entirely clear from Virginia's petition, it appears that the “title” will reside as an electronic record with the VADMV, but that a hard copy of the title will be generated for the transferee, if requested.
The Virginia petition states that its proposal would permit “the transferor to disclose the odometer mileage to the transferee and the transferee to view and acknowledge receipt of the transferor's disclosure in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle, as part of a secure on-line transaction with the VADMV.” Under Virginia's proposal, to complete a sale of the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle (transferor) and the purchaser of the vehicle (transferee) would be required to perform several steps after they agree upon the sale. Included in this process is the creation and use of electronic signatures.
Under Virginia's petition, an electronic signature would be created during the process of transferring the title. According to VADMV, the customer number, unique personal identification number (PIN) and date of birth (DOB) of the customer will be used in combination to create the electronic signature for each transferor and transferee. Thus, as a threshold matter, the process for transferring title would require both the transferor and the transferee to obtain a PIN from the VADMV.
The online transaction begins when the transferor logs on to the VADMV's Web site using his/her customer number, date of birth and PIN to verify the transferor's identity. These also would be used to create the electronic signature of the transferor. The transferor would then select the “vehicle transfer of ownership” transaction and either choose the vehicle from a displayed list of eligible vehicles or enter the vehicle's VIN. The transfer would then enter the vehicle sales price, the odometer reading and brand (Actual, Not Actual or Exceeds). After entering this data, the VADMV system will provide the transferor with a unique transaction number. The transferor must provide the unique transaction number to the transferee to complete the transaction. The VADMV system will also prompt the transferor to mail the existing vehicle title to the VADMV for destruction.
The transaction would remain in “pending” status with VADMV until the transferee logs on to complete the transfer of ownership transaction. Meanwhile, the VADMV system would automatically check the odometer reading entered by the transferor against the odometer reading on the VADMV system. If the odometer reading entered by the transferor is lower, the transaction will be immediately rejected and referred to the VADMV Law Enforcement Services Division for an investigation.
The transferee would then log on to VADMV's Web site, using his/her customer number, DOB and PIN (this would be the transferee's electronic signature). The transferee would select the pending vehicle transfer of ownership transaction, and he/she would enter the unique transaction number that was provided by the transferor. The transferee would be required to enter the correct transaction number in order to obtain access to the pending transaction. Once such access is obtained, the transferee would verify the sales price, odometer reading and brand that were entered by the transferor. The transaction would process if all the data entered by the transferor is verified and acknowledged as correct by the transferee. Ownership of the vehicle would transfer to the transferee and an electronic title record would be established by VADMV. The VADMV would then maintain the electronic title and would issue a paper title upon the request of the transferee.
If the transferee does not agree with the information entered by the transferor, then the VADMV system will reject the transaction. The transferor will have the opportunity to correct the sales price, odometer reading and brand for the rejected transaction. The transferee would then re-verify the information to ensure the accuracy. A second discrepancy would result in cancellation of the electronic transaction.
Virginia's petition asserts that its proposed alternate odometer disclosure is consistent with federal odometer law, but it did not address the purposes of TIMA. As advanced by VADMV, Virginia's alternative ensures that a fraudulent odometer disclosure can readily be detected and reliably traced to a particular individual by providing a means for the VADMV to validate and authenticate the electronic signatures of both parties. This verification is done through the generation of the customer number and unique PIN that are provided to customers of the VADMV. Virginia states that this unique electronic signature can be quickly and reliably traced to a particular individual.
Second, Virginia states that the electronic odometer disclosure provided by the transferor will be available to the transferee at the time ownership of the vehicle is transferred. During the transfer-of-ownership transaction, the transferee would view the odometer reading and brand information that was supplied by the transferor, thereby ensuring that the transferee is aware of the vehicle's mileage as well as any problem with the odometer that was disclosed by the transferor.
Third, VADVM asserts that its proposal provides a level of security equivalent to that of a disclosure on a secure title document. According to Virginia, the unique electronic signatures (customer number, PIN and DOB) utilized by each party to the transaction in addition to the unique transaction number generated by the VADMV ensure secure access to the on-line transaction and a reliable means of verifying the identities and electronic signatures of each individual. In addition, Virginia notes added security in its proposal because the information from the transferor and transferee must match exactly. If a discrepancy exists that is not corrected, the transaction would automatically be rejected and transfer of ownership would not take place. Virginia states that the same process would be used in dealer transactions with additional safeguards.
Virginia refers to an April 25, 2003 letter by former NHTSA Chief Counsel, Jacqueline Glassman, stating that an electronic signature in the lessee-to-lessor context satisfies the requirement for a written disclosure under 49 CFR 580.7(b).
As discussed above, the standard is that NHTSA “shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the [NHTSA] determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e) as the case may be.” The purposes are discussed above, as is the Virginia program. We now provide our initial assessment whether Virginia's proposal satisfies TIMA's purposes as relevant to its petition.
A purpose is to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. In this regard, NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed alternate disclosure requirements satisfy this purpose. Under Virginia's proposal, it appears that the “title” will reside as an electronic record with the VADMV, but that a hard copy of the title will be generated for the transferee, if requested. Virginia's proposed system will, therefore, continue to have the odometer disclosure on the virtual “title” itself, as required by TIMA, and not as a separate document. As to TIMA's requirement that the title contain a space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage, NHTSA does not believe the electronic transaction Virginia has outlined implicates the space requirement. NHTSA, however, assumes that if a hard copy of the title is requested, Virginia will continue to provide a separate space on the hard copy title, in keeping with TIMA and current practice.
Another purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the title a condition of the application for a title and a requirement for the title issued by the State. In this regard, NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed process satisfies this purpose. During the proposed on-line process for retitling, the disclosure of odometer information occurs during the transfer of ownership and a title is required by Virginia's proposal to complete the transaction. During the on-line transaction, the transferor is instructed to mail the existing title to the VADMV for destruction.
Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent alterations to disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles, through secure processes. NHTSA has initially determined in this matter that Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements appear to provide equivalent security against alterations, tampering or counterfeit titles to a paper title printed through a secure process, if not even more security. Electronic recordation of the odometer reading decreases the likelihood of any subsequent odometer disclosure being altered by erasures or other methods. As we understand Virginia's proposal, once the transaction is completed, VADMV stores an electronic version of the title until the transferee requests it. The transferee may never request the title, even if there is a subsequent transfer. Under this system, all subsequent transfers may be performed through the on-line process. Each time an on-line transfer occurs, the VADMV stores the electronic version of the title, and issues a paper title only upon request. If the title remains in electronic form, the likelihood of an individual altering, tampering or counterfeiting the title is decreased significantly. Moreover, the electronic recordation can detect an attempted alteration or fraudulent disclosure almost immediately. If a transferee requests a paper title, the VADMV will issue a paper title, printed through a secure process, with the requisite odometer information on the title.
Another purpose of TIMA is to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and
Moreover, the overall purpose of TIMA is to protect consumers by assuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. Here, Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements include several prerequisites that make it unlikely that the representations of a vehicle's actual mileage by the transferor to the transferee would be of lesser validity than representations made through a vehicle transfer by paper title and potentially deter odometer fraud better than a paper title. These prerequisites include the verification of the individuals to the transfer transaction through the issuance of a PIN number from VADMV. Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements also include procedures to assure that a transferee verifies the odometer disclosure made by the transferor. In addition, the verification of the odometer reading provides indication of potential fraud to the transferee should the transferor attempt to enter a different mileage into the system than the mileage the transferee observed on the vehicle when the agreement to purchase was made.
For the foregoing reasons, NHTSA preliminarily grants Virginia's proposed alternate disclosure requirements. This is not a final agency action. NHTSA invites public comments within the scope of this notice. Should NHTSA decide to issue a final grant of this petition, it will likely reserve the right to rescind that grant in the event that information acquired after that grant were to indicate that, in operation, Virginia's alternate requirements do not satisfy applicable standards.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given under
You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Webbsite at
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given under
You also may see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft take reduction plan; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the initial determination that the pelagic longline fishery has a high level of mortality and serious injury across a number of marine mammal stocks, and proposes regulations to implement the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP) to reduce serious injuries and mortalities of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The PLTRP is based on consensus recommendations submitted by the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT). This action is necessary because current serious injury and mortality rates of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline component of a Category I fishery are above insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate (zero mortality rate goal, or ZMRG), and therefore, inconsistent with the long-term goal of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The PLTRP is intended to meet the statutory mandates and requirements of the MMPA through both regulatory and non-regulatory measures, including a special research area, gear modifications, outreach material, observer coverage, and captains' communications.
Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern time on September 22, 2008.
You may submit comments, identified by the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0648-AV65, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
• Facsimile (fax): 727 824-5309, Attn: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources.
• Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
This proposed rule, references, and background documents for the PLTRP can be downloaded from the Take Reduction web site at
Laura Engleby or Jennifer Lee, NMFS, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312, or Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322. Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Section 118(f)(1) of the MMPA requires NMFS to develop and implement take reduction plans to assist in the recovery or prevent the depletion of each strategic marine mammal stock that interacts with Category I and II fisheries. It also provides NMFS discretion to develop and implement a take reduction plan for any other marine mammal stocks that interact with a Category I fishery, which the agency determines, after notice and opportunity for public comment, has a high level of mortality and serious injury across a number of such marine mammal stocks.
The MMPA defines a strategic stock as a marine mammal stock: (1) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal (PBR) level; (2) which is declining and is likely to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the foreseeable future; or (3) which is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or as a depleted species under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(2)). PBR is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that can be removed annually from a stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population level. Category I or II fisheries are fisheries that, respectively, have frequent or occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.
The immediate goal of a take reduction plan for a strategic stock is to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the incidental serious injury or mortality of marine mammals from commercial fishing to levels less than PBR. The long-term goal is to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals from commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero serious injury and mortality rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans. The insignificance threshold, or upper limit of annual incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammal stocks by commercial fisheries that can be considered insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, has been defined at 50 CFR 229.2 as 10 percent of the PBR for a stock of marine mammals.
The impetus for this plan was a 2003 settlement agreement between NMFS and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), that required the convening of a Take Reduction Team (the PLTRT) under the MMPA by June 30, 2005, to address serious injury and mortality of short- and long-finned pilot whales and common dolphins in the Atlantic
Based on updated information, the 2005 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments report (SAR) reclassified long- and short-finned pilot whales as non-strategic. The SAR indicated that serious injuries and mortalities in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery were primarily limited to the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) (Waring
The 2005 SAR also reported that within the previous five years, there were no observed serious injuries or mortalities of common dolphins in the pelagic longline fishery; therefore, this stock was reclassified as non-strategic in the 2005 SAR, based on estimates of serious injuries and mortalities in both the pelagic longline fishery as well as other observed fisheries.
Risso's dolphins, although not included in the settlement agreement, also sustain serious injuries and mortalities incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.
For Risso's dolphins and long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, estimated serious injury and mortality levels in the pelagic longline fishery exceed the insignificance threshold but do not exceed the PBR level for the stocks. Because these species are below PBR and considered non-strategic stocks but interact with a Category I fishery, NMFS directed the PLTRT to develop and submit a draft Take Reduction Plan to the agency within 11 months, in accordance with the long-term goal of MMPA section 118, focusing on reducing incidental mortalities and serious injuries of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins to a level approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of implementation of the plan.
In accordance with the MMPA and the settlement agreement, NMFS convened the PLTRT in June 2005. NMFS announced the establishment of the PLTRT on June 22, 2005, in the
Four professionally facilitated meetings and two full-team conference calls were held between June 2005 and May 2006. During these meetings, NMFS presented abundance estimates, serious injury and mortality estimates of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins, characterization and regulatory structure of the pelagic longline fishery, and analyses of observer, logbook, and other fisheries data to the PLTRT. In addition, NMFS developed a predictive model that analyzed a number of variables (e.g., environmental factors, gear types, etc.) to determine which variables may be useful in predicting and/or minimizing interactions between marine mammals and longline gear as well as possible impacts on target species catch and bycatch of other protected species (e.g., sea turtles). Each meeting included facilitated discussions to draft and revise various components of the PLTRP, with an emphasis on management and research recommendations. The PLTRT reached consensus at the May 2006 meeting, and on June 8, 2006, submitted to NMFS a Draft PLTRP including recommendations for bycatch reduction measures, as well as research needs and other non-regulatory measures (PLTRT, 2006).
In the MAB, the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery interacts with two species of pilot whales that occur in that area. Long-finned pilot whales are distributed worldwide in cold temperate waters in both the Northern (North Atlantic) and Southern Hemispheres. In the North Atlantic, the species is broadly distributed and thought to occur from 40° to 75° N. lat. in the eastern North Atlantic and from 35° to 65° N. lat. in the western North Atlantic (Abend and Smith, 1999). Short-finned pilot whales are also distributed worldwide in warm temperate and tropical waters. In U.S. Atlantic waters, this species is found in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and in the western North Atlantic as far north as the central MAB. Both species tend to favor the continental shelf break and slope, as well as other areas of high relief, but are also present offshore in the pelagic environment. In the western North Atlantic, they may be associated with the north wall of the Gulf Stream and with thermal fronts (Waring
The two species are difficult to distinguish during visual abundance surveys, and therefore, in many cases, reference is made to the combined species,
Stock structure is not well known for long-finned or short-finned pilot whales in the North Atlantic. Indirect and direct studies on long-finned pilot whales indicate that there is some degree of stock differentiation within the North Atlantic (Mercer, 1975; Bloch and Lastein, 1993; Abend and Smith, 1995; Abend and Smith, 1999; Fullard
The total number of pilot whales off the eastern U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast is unknown, although estimates from particular regions of their habitat (e.g., continental slope) exist for select time periods (see Waring
Risso's dolphins occur worldwide in warm temperate and tropical waters roughly between 60° N. and 60° S. lat., and records of the species in the western North Atlantic range from Greenland south, including the Gulf of Mexico (Kruse
Abundance estimates for Risso's dolphins off the U.S. or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown, although eight estimates from particular regions of their habitat exist for select time periods (Waring
PBR is defined as the product of minimum population size (in this case, of the portion of the stock surveyed within the U.S. EEZ), one-half the maximum productivity rate, and a recovery factor (MMPA Sec. 3(20), 16 U.S.C. 1362). The maximum productivity rate for both pilot whales and Risso's dolphin is 0.04, the default value for cetaceans (Barlow
The 2007 draft SAR reported an average combined annual serious injury and mortality incidental to pelagic longline fishing of 86 pilot whales (CV=0.16) and 34 Risso's dolphins (CV=0.32), based on the years 2001-2005 (Waring
The proposed PLTRP takes a stepwise, adaptive management approach to achieve the long-term goal of reducing serious injuries and mortality of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of implementation. A series of management measures are designed to make an initial significant contribution to reducing serious injury and mortality. The proposed PLTRP also includes research recommendations for better understanding how pilot whales and Risso's dolphins interact with longline gear, as well as assessing current and potential new management measures. The PLTRT agreed to evaluate the success of the final PLTRP at periodic intervals over the next five years and to consider amending the PLTRP based on the results of ongoing monitoring, research, and evaluation.
The proposed PLTRP reflects the results of a predictive model, which analyzed a number of variables (e.g., environmental factors, gear characteristics, etc.) to determine which variables may be useful in predicting and/or minimizing interactions between marine mammals and longline gear, and possible impacts on target species catch and bycatch of other protected species (e.g., sea turtles). A total of 39 variables were developed and considered as potential explanatory factors in the predictive model. These variables are classified into five major categories: environment, space and time, gear type, effort, and catch. These analyses employed Pelagic Observer Program (POP) data collected from 1992 to 2004 and modeled the effects of gear and environmental factors on the probability of interacting with pilot whales or Risso's dolphins.
The predictive model proved to be an invaluable tool for the PLTRT to develop management strategies, since multiple variables could be tested and evaluated. For pilot whales, variables found to have significant correlations included fishing area (81 percent of interactions occur along the MAB), distance from the 200 m (109 fathoms) isobath (all interactions were observed within 40 km (21.6 nautical miles, nm) of the 200 m (109 fathoms) isobath), water temperature (peak interactions occur between 70-80° F (21-27° C)), mainline length (interactions were twice as high in sets with mainline lengths greater than 20 nm (37.02 km)) and swordfish damage (interaction rates were three times higher in sets with damage to swordfish catch). Further analysis of the mainline length effect indicated that fishing with mainlines less than 20 nm (37.02 km) in length resulted in an approximately 50 percent reduction in the probability of interacting with a pilot whale relative to longer mainline lengths. For Risso's dolphins, similar results were found, although correlations were not as strong. Interactions with Risso's dolphins were also significantly correlated with the Northeast Coastal area and with sets that used squid as bait.
After considering the results of the predictive model, the PLTRT recommended a suite of management strategies to reduce mortality and serious injury of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. This proposed rule addresses both the regulatory and non-regulatory measures recommended by the PLTRT. NMFS proposes to incorporate nearly all of the PLTRT's
One consensus recommendation will not be implemented through this proposed rule, but will be implemented under different authority. Specifically, the PLTRT recommended NMFS develop and implement a mandatory certification program to educate owners and operators of pelagic longline vessels about ways to reduce serious injury and mortality of marine mammal bycatch. On August 19, 2005, NMFS published a proposed rule to consolidate the management of all Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) under one Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (70 FR 48804). The proposed rule included a certification program to educate vessel owners and operators on using required equipment to handle and release sea turtles and other protected species (with recertification every three years). The PLTRT recommended that the certification program proposed in the August 2005 Draft Consolidated HMS FMP and associated proposed rule (70 FR 48804) be expanded to incorporate information regarding marine mammal interactions, including:
• Safe handling and release techniques for marine mammals;
• Current regulations and guidelines that apply to the fishery, especially those related to marine mammal bycatch, and an explanation of the purpose and justification of those regulations and guidelines;
• Information from logbooks and auxiliary forms associated with particular research projects;
• Guidelines for captain's communications;
• Updates on NMFS' observer program, including relevant recent findings;
• Description of research and monitoring projects aimed at reducing marine mammal bycatch, including an explanation of the purpose of this research and a description of key research results to date; and
• Information on marine mammal species identification.
NMFS is proposing to implement the PLTRT's recommendation using NMFS' existing regulatory authority at 50 CFR 635.8, Workshops. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published the Consolidated HMS FMP and the associated final rule (71 FR 58058), which requires all HMS longline fishermen to attend a NMFS workshop and earn certification in mitigation, handling, and release techniques for sea turtles, sea birds, and other protected species. This rule provides NMFS with the authority necessary to implement the PLTRT's recommendation without additional regulation. Since 2007, NFMS has incorporated education on careful handling and release techniques for marine mammals, current regulations and guidelines that apply to the fishery related to marine mammal bycatch, and an explanation of the purpose and justification of those regulations and guidelines into these workshops. NMFS proposes to expand the content of the workshops as appropriate to meet the needs of the PLTRP.
The PLTRT also discussed other mitigation and conservation measures that they did not include in their consensus recommendations because they were either economically or technologically infeasible or did not meet the goals of the MMPA. Information on these can be reviewed in the Draft PLTRP (PLTRT, 2006).
NMFS proposes the following three regulatory measures: (1) Establish a Cape Hatteras Special Research Area (CHSRA), with specific observer and research participation requirements for fishermen operating in that area; (2) set a 20-nm (37.02-km) upper limit on mainline length for all pelagic longline sets within the MAB; and (3) develop and publish an informational placard that must be displayed in the wheelhouse and the working deck of all active pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic fishery.
The PLTRT recommended NMFS designate a special research area offshore of Cape Hatteras (hereafter referred to as the CHSRA) with specific observer and research participation requirements for fishermen operating in that area. The proposed CHSRA includes all waters inside and including the rectangular boundary described by the following lines: 35° N. lat., 75° W. long., 36° 25′ N. lat., and 74° 35′ W. long. In order to use pelagic longline gear within this area, the PLTRT recommended NMFS implement through regulations the following requirements: (1) The owner and operator of the vessel must accept, facilitate, and be capable of taking scientific observers; (2) the owner and operator of the vessel must be both willing and able to participate in government-sponsored research targeting marine mammal bycatch reduction; pilot whale behavior, biology, ecology; or other related topics; and (3) the operator of the vessel must maintain daily communications with other local vessel operators regarding marine mammal interactions with the goal of identifying and exchanging information relevant to avoiding bycatch of marine mammals and other protected species.
The proposed CHSRA encompasses a 5,927 sq km (2,288 sq mile) region that over the past five years has exhibited both high fishing effort and high pilot whale bycatch rates. NMFS delineated the area to encompass the vast majority of the observed interactions and to exclude the area where inshore longline vessels target yellowfin tuna and coastal sharks, since the inshore area had low observed interaction rates.
Vessels in the proposed CHSRA would be required to carry observers when requested. In the proposed regulations, vessels deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard must call the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) at least 48 hours prior to embarking on the trip. This requirement would be in addition to any existing selection and notification requirement for observer coverage by the POP. If a vessel is assigned an observer, the vessel must take the observer during that trip; if the vessel refuses to take the observer, the vessel is prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard. NMFS also proposes that no waivers be granted to vessels fishing in the CHSRA that do not meet observer safety requirements.
The collection of observer data representing all vessels in an area is critical not only for obtaining accurate (i.e., unbiased) estimates of bycatch, but also for collecting information about factors that may be important for mitigating bycatch (NMFS 2004). For this reason, NMFS believes full compliance with observer requirements in the CHSRA is essential. As noted earlier, vessels that fish primarily in the MAB have higher observed marine mammal take rates than those in other areas. However, 58 percent of pelagic longline vessels reporting effort in the MAB between 2001 and 2005 have never been observed in the MAB. This is because certain vessels are routinely exempted from observer coverage because they do not meet the observer safety or accommodations requirements, which may bias observer data (i.e., data would not be representative of actual fishing effort). In order forNMFSto accurately monitor levels of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals incidental to the pelagic longline
In addition to the proposed requirement for carrying observers, NMFS proposes requirements for vessels in the CHSRA to participate in research. The establishment of the CHSRA and the research participation requirement form an essential component of the proposed PLTRP, enabling focused research on pilot whale interactions with the pelagic longline fishery, thus contributing to achieving the objectives of the PLTRP. Obtaining better data for characterizing fishery interactions is a high priority. The PLTRT was limited in its ability to develop management strategies to reduce the frequency of interactions between pilot whales and longline fishing gear due to a lack of information regarding the nature, timing, and causes of these interactions. The proposed CHSRA would enableNMFSto assess current and potential new management measures and would be fundamental in formulating effective bycatch reduction strategies.
To implement the research participation requirement, NMFS proposes that in addition to observing normal fishing activities, observers also conduct additional scientific investigations aboard pelagic longline vessels in the CHSRA, as authorized by MMPA section 118(d)(2)(C). These investigations would be designed to support the goals of the PLTRP. The observers will inform vessel operators of the specific additional investigations that may be conducted during the trip. An observer may direct vessel operators to modify their fishing behavior, gear, or both. Instead of or in addition to carrying an observer, vessels may be required to carry and deploy gear provided by NMFS or an observer or modify their fishing practices. By calling the NMFS SEFSC, per the observer requirement described above, vessels would be agreeing to take an observer and acknowledging they are both willing and able to participate in research in the CHSRA without any compensation. If vessels are assigned any special research requirements, they must participate in the research for the duration of the assignment. If they do not participate in the research, they are prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard.
Although NMFS strongly supports the PLTRT's goal of identifying and exchanging information among vessel operators relevant to avoiding bycatch of marine mammals and other protected species, NMFS is not proposing regulations to require the operator of the vessel to maintain daily communications with other local vessel operators regarding marine mammal interactions within the CHSRA. Implementation of this recommendation via regulation would require NMFS to conduct extensive surveillance for monitoring and enforcement. Even then, NMFS would rarely have information on an individual vessel's fishing conditions, catch, and bycatch. Thus, enforcement of such a regulatory requirement would be impractical.
Available information from three case studies of voluntary captains' communication programs supports the inference that voluntary communication programs have substantially reduced fisheries bycatch and provided large economic benefits that outweigh the relatively nominal operating costs (Martin
Atlantic pelagic longline fishermen are already motivated to avoid interactions with marine mammals, as these interactions can result in significant economic loss due to loss of both target catch and gear from depredation and entanglements, respectively. Marine mammal interactions also represent a safety risk to vessel operators and crew, as pilot whales caught in gear can be very dangerous due to their size and strength. For these reasons, NMFS believes outreach would be more effective in this fishery. Therefore, NMFS will work instead with CHSRA researchers and fishermen to encourage captains' communications in the CHSRA through voluntary cooperation and as part of ongoing research.
NMFS proposes, in accordance with the PLTRT recommendation, to set a 20-nm (37.02-km) upper limit on mainline length for all pelagic longline sets within the MAB, including the CHSRA. Operators of individual fishing vessels would be allowed to fish multiple sets at one time, if they so desired, but the mainline length for each set could not exceed 20 nm (37.02 km).
The predictive model developed for pilot whales was used to explore the potential effects of a mandated reduction in mainline length to less than or equal to 20 nm (37.02 km). Of the potential changes to fishing gear discussed by the PLTRT, this management measure was the only one to have a significant effect on pilot whale interactions. The predictive model estimates a reduction in pilot whale interactions of approximately 26 percent when longlines in the MAB are limited to less than 20 nm (37.02 km) in length. This reduction assumes that fishermen will sometimes fish additional sets to compensate for hooks lost by limiting mainline length to 20 nm (37.02 km). The PLTRT considered a 50 percent compensation in fishing effort for lost hooks a reasonable scenario.
At NMFS' discretion, per the PLTRT's recommendation, NMFS may waive this restriction in the CHSRA in specific cases to support research for reducing bycatch of marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery. In cases where NMFS intends to waive this restriction, NMFS will consult with the PLTRT and publish a notice of the decision in the
The PLTRT recommended NMFS develop and publish an informational placard that must be displayed in the wheelhouse and on the working deck of all active pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic fishery. The placard would be based on the existing marine mammal careful handling and release guidelines for pelagic longline gear. The PLTRT specified the placard should draw on information presented in a mandatory certification program and reference filling out a Marine Mammal Injury and Mortality Reporting Form for every marine mammal interaction as required by MMPA section 118(e) and 50 CFR 229.6.
NMFS proposes to implement this PLTRT recommendation. NMFS believes this proposed action would facilitate the careful handling and release of any pilot whale, Risso's dolphin, or other small cetacean caught incidentally during pelagic longline fishing. The posting requirement would ensure NMFS' guidelines are readily available for reference during a capture or entanglement event.
The PLTRT recommended implementing the following non-regulatory measures: (1) Provide for 12 to 15 percent observer coverage throughout all Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries that interact with pilot whales or Risso's dolphins; (2) encourage vessel operators (i.e., captains) throughout the fishery to maintain daily communications with other local vessel captains regarding protected species interactions, with the goal of identifying and exchanging information relevant to avoiding protected species bycatch; (3) update careful handling/release guidelines, equipment, and methods; and (4) provide quarterly reports of marine mammal interactions in the pelagic longline fishery to the PLTRT.
The PLTRT recommended NMFS increase observer coverage to 12 to 15 percent throughout all Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries that interact with pilot whales and Risso's dolphins to ensure representative sampling of fishing effort. They specified sampling should be designed to achieve statistical reliability of marine mammal bycatch estimates and should also take into account the objectives of marine mammal bycatch reduction. If resources are not available to provide such observer coverage for all fisheries, regions, and seasons, the PLTRT recommended NMFS allocate observer coverage to fisheries, regions, and seasons with the highest observed or reported bycatch rates of pilot whales. The PLTRT recommended additional coverage be achieved by either increasing the number of NMFS observers who have been specially trained to collect additional information supporting marine mammal research, or by allowing designated and specially-trained “marine mammal observers” (deployed by either NMFS or cooperating researchers) who would supplement the traditional observer coverage.
NMFS proposes to implement this recommendation within the constraints of available funding. A simulation analysis evaluating the effects of increased observer coverage on the precision of bycatch estimates indicated: (1) 12 to 15 percent observer coverage would result in the most significant gains in precision, (2) setting a higher target in this range would “guard” against unforeseen problems placing observers on vessels, and (3) further increases in coverage would yield relatively little additional precision despite significantly higher costs. Pilot whales are primarily observed to interact with the longline fishery in the MAB and Northeast Coastal areas; Risso's dolphins interact with the fishery in these areas as well as the Northeast Distant area. Based on these observations, NMFS proposes to, within the constraints of available funding, increase observer coverage to 12 to 15 percent, in order of priority, in the (1) CHSRA, (2) MAB, and (3) other areas, such as Northeast Coastal. While this measure is geared towards improving the precision of serious injury and mortality estimates, additional coverage would also better characterize fishing operations and marine mammal behavior, facilitate collection of data needed for research, and increase opportunities to collect biopsy samples from hooked or entangled marine mammals.
The PLTRT recommended NMFS encourage vessel operators (i.e., captains) to maintain daily communication with other local vessel operators regarding protected species interactions throughout the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery with the goal of identifying and exchanging information relevant to avoiding protected species bycatch. Captains' communication were considered as both a strategy for avoiding marine mammals' exposure to vessels and gear and as a strategy for reducing the probability of an interaction once marine mammals are in the vicinity of the gear.
NMFS is proposing to implement this non-regulatory recommendation. The basis for NMFS' support of a voluntary captains' communications program is provided in the discussion of the CHSRA.
The PLTRT recommended NMFS update the guidelines for careful handling and release of entangled or hooked marine mammals. They recommended NMFS' guidelines include descriptions of appropriate equipment and methods. They also encouraged both NMFS and the pelagic longline industry to develop new technologies, equipment, and methods for safer and more effective handling and release of entangled or hooked marine mammals. They recommended developments be evaluated carefully and incorporated into revised guidelines for careful handling and release of marine mammals when appropriate.
In the winter of 2006, in preparation for the workshops for HMS fishermen, NMFS worked with the PLTRT and other NMFS staff in updating a preexisting placard to reflect the best available information on careful handling and release of marine mammals. This version of the placard has been distributed at the training workshops in 2007 and 2008. NMFS proposes to periodically update the guidelines per the PLTRT's recommendation, based on any new technologies, equipment, and methods for safer and more effective handling and release of entangled or hooked marine mammals.
The PLTRT also recommended short-, medium-, and long-duration research and data collection goals designed to enhance the success of the PLTRP. While the predictive model provided tremendous guidance to the PLTRT, there is a significant lack of information concerning how pilot whales and Risso's dolphins interact with the pelagic longline fishery. Thus, many of the research recommendations are general in scope and applicable to both pilot whales and Risso's dolphins unless specified otherwise. The complete list of these recommendations can be found in Section IX of the Draft PLTRP (PLTRT, 2006). The PLTRT recommended that priority be given to: (1) research on species that are closest to or exceed PBR levels; (2) research to evaluate the effects of implemented management measures, and (3) research on species specific abundance, mortality, and post-hooking survivorship. The PLTRT also recommended that, as funds become available for pelagic longline take reduction-related research, a subgroup of the PLTRT be convened to advise on selection of research projects based on priorities and the amount of funds available.
NMFS proposes to pursue the additional research and data collection goals outlined by the PLTRT, within the constraints of available funding. Further, NMFS proposes to consider the PLTRT's recommendations for additional research and data collection when establishing NMFS' funding priorities. NMFS would follow the recommendations to the extent that good scientific practice and resources allow. As feasible and appropriate, NMFS would consult with PLTRT members during this process.
The proposed PLTRP takes a stepwise, adaptive management approach to achieving the long-term goal of reducing, within five years of its implementation, serious injuries and
Under the proposed PLTRP, the PLTRT will periodically: (1) analyze the status of scientific information on pilot whales and Risso's dolphins, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the PLTRP, and (3) adjust the PLTRP's management measures and research program, as appropriate, to ensure that the goal of the PLTRP will be met within 5 years of its implementation. Per the PLTRT's request, NMFS will provide any updates available on the following types of information to inform these periodic assessments: (1) Status of PLTRP implementation, (2) SARs; (3) habitat analyses; (4) data collection and research findings; (5) voluntary efforts carried out by the pelagic longline industry; (6) status of observer coverage; and (7) predictive model results for pilot whales and Risso's dolphins, based on updated data.
The timing of these assessments would be tied to both the availability of data and the time needed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of management measures or the results of the research program. As requested by the PLTRT, NMFS will provide them with quarterly reports of bycatch of marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery. The quarterly reports will help determine when it will be timely and useful for the PLTRT to reconvene. In conjunction with the receipt of quarterly bycatch reports, the PLTRT agreed to assess the merits of convening future PLTRT meetings, either in-person or by teleconference.
NMFS is soliciting comments on any aspect of this proposed rule, including the development and implementation of the PLTRP pursuant to MMPA section 118(f)(1) and the specific regulatory and non-regulatory measures proposed. NMFS is particularly interested in comments concerning (1) NMFS' view that the level of bycatch signifies a high level of bycatch in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery across a number of marine mammal stocks, warranting the development and implementation of a take reduction plan for pilot whale and Risso's dolphin stocks, (2) NMFS' decision to implement the PLTRT's recommendation for a mandatory certification program using NMFS'existing authority at 50 CFR 635.8, Workshops, (3) the research recommendations and priorities for better understanding how pilot whales and Risso's dolphins interact with longline gear, as well as for assessing current and potential management measures, (4) the CHSRA requirements, (5) expected fishing effort compensation under the proposed mainline length restriction, and (6) information on careful handling and release of marine mammals.
NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management programs of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. This determination has been submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they either had average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood processors. These are the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for defining a small versus large business entity in this industry. An “active” pelagic longline vessel is considered to be a vessel that reported pelagic longline activity in the HMS logbook. The number of active HMS pelagic longline vessels has been precipitously decreasing since 1994. In the MAB, only 85 unique pelagic longline vessels reported effort between 2001 and 2006. The number of vessels fishing in the MAB has declined in recent years, and between 2003 and 2006, the number of vessels reporting effort in the MAB ranged between 38 and 41.
The alternatives considered and analyzed include four options. Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) would maintain the status quo management for the pelagic longline fishery under the HMS FMP. Alternative 2 would implement only the non-regulatory components recommended in the Draft PLTRP, while allowing time for collecting additional scientific data prior to implementing regulatory measures. Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, would limit the mainline length to 20 nm or less within the MAB, designate the CHSRA with associated observer and research participation requirements, and require all pelagic longline vessels to post an informational placard on careful handling and release of marine mammals. Alternative 4 would include a six-month closure (July-December) of the southern MAB sub-regional area and a year-round mainline length reduction throughout the MAB, inclusive of that sub-regional area.
Under the status quo alternative, it is estimated that the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet generates an estimated $24.6 million in revenues. Applying average species weights reported to dealers in 2004 and the average 2006 ex-vessel prices reported by dealers in the MAB region, NMFS estimated the potential change in fishery revenues from the mainline length restriction, depending on the level of compensation in fishing effort, to range from an increase of $777,747 (full compensation in the number of hooks fished) to a loss of $819,523 (no compensation in the number of hooks fished), with an estimated loss of $239,383 with 50 percent compensation in the number of hooks fished. This change in revenues would impact 41 or fewer vessels per year based on current trends in the number of active pelagic longline vessels and the number of vessels that operated in the MAB in 2006. If one assumes that 41 vessels are affected by this restriction, then the estimated annual impact per vessel ranges from an increase of $18,969 per vessel to a decrease of $19,988 per vessel, with an estimated decrease of $5,838 under the most likely scenarios (50 percent compensation in fishing effort).
The economic costs of Alternative 4 were evaluated based upon historical observed catch rates and reported effort in the MAB fishing area only for the period 2002 to 2004. The impact of the closure of the southern region of the MAB from July-December was estimated by assuming no catch in that area, resulting in a total estimated cost of $770,000. The combined effect of the 6-month closure and the mainline length
Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) and Alternative 2 were not selected because they were not expected to meet the conservation objectives of the proposed rule or the goals in MMPA section 118. Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would meet the objectives of the proposed rule. Alternative 4 was not selected because, although it would meet objectives of the proposed rule, it would likely result in larger economic impacts to small entities than the preferred alternative.
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule can be found on the PLTRT website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
2. In subpart A, § 229.3, paragraphs (t) and (u) are added to read as follows:
(t) It is prohibited to deploy or fish with pelagic longline gear in the Mid-Atlantic Bight unless the vessel:
(1) Complies with the placard posting requirement specified in § 229.36(c); and
(2) Complies with the gear restrictions specified in § 229.36(e).
(u) It is prohibited to deploy or fish with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or to transit through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard unless the vessel is in compliance with the observer and research requirements specified in § 229.36(d).
3. In subpart C, § 229.36 is added to read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(e)
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of public meetings.
We are issuing this notice to advise the public that meetings of the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (Committee) will be held to discuss various beginning farmer and rancher issues.
The public meetings will be held July 9-10, 2008. The first meeting, on July 9, 2008, will begin at 8 a.m. and end by 5:30 p.m. The second meeting, on July 10, 2008, will begin at 8 a.m. and end by 4 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Standard Time (EST). See
All meetings will be held at the Sofitel Hotel, 806 15th Street, Washington, DC, (202) 730-8800. Written requests to make oral presentations must be sent to: Mark Falcone, Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0522, Washington, DC 20250-0522; telephone (202) 720-1632; FAX (202) 690-1117;
Mark Falcone at (202) 720-1632.
Section 5 of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-554) required the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to establish the Committee for the purpose of advising the Secretary on the following:
(1) The development of a program of coordinated financial assistance to qualified beginning farmers and ranchers, required by section 309(i) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1929) (under the program, Federal and State beginning farmer programs provide financial assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers);
(2) Methods of maximizing the number of new farming and ranching opportunities created through the program;
(3) Methods of encouraging States to participate in the program;
(4) The administration of the program; and
(5) Other methods of creating new farming or ranching opportunities.
The Committee meets annually and all meetings are open to the public. The duration of the Committee is indefinite. Earlier meetings of the Committee, beginning in 1999, provided an opportunity for members to exchange ideas on ways to increase opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers. Members discussed various issues and drafted numerous recommendations, which were provided to the Secretary.
Agenda items for the July 2008 meetings include:
(1) Discussions concerning provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234, May 22, 2008) (also referred to commonly as the 2008 Farm Bill);
(2) USDA's response to the recommendations made in the September 2007 Government Accountability Office report entitled: “BEGINNING FARMERS: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of USDA Assistance”;
(3) A presentation of a national project focused on farmland access, tenure, and succession funded by USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
(4) Brief presentations by several Advisory Committee members on: The Wisconsin School for Beginning Dairy and Livestock Farmers; innovative opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers in Nebraska; and new immigrant farming initiatives; and
(5) Status of previous committee recommendations and drafting new recommendations.
Attendance is open to all interested persons, but limited to space available. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing (letter, fax, or e-mail) to Mark Falcone at the above address. Statements should be received no later than July 3, 2008. Requests should include the name and affiliation of the individual who will make the presentation and an outline of the issues to be addressed. The floor will be open to oral presentations beginning at 1:15 p.m. EST on July 9, 2008.
Oral Statements will be limited to 5 minutes, and presenters will be approved on a first-come, first-served basis.
Persons with disabilities who require special accommodations to attend or participate in the meetings should contact Mark Falcone by July 3, 2008.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of adjustment for resuming the land management plan revision process
The USDA, Forest Service is resuming preparation of the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan as directed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Preparation of the revised plan was halted when the 2005 Forest Service planning rule was enjoined. A new planning rule (36 CFR Part 219 was adopted on April 21, 2008 allowing the planning process to be resumed. This notice resumes the plan revision process under the new 2008 planning rule. This notice also provides:
1. An estimated schedule for the planning process;
2. Request for additional public comments on the agency's draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report, and how the public can comment;
3. A list of documents available and how to get them;
4. Who to contact for more information.
This notice is effective on June 24, 2008. Comments on the draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report are requested to be postmarked or received by August 8, 2008. A series of public meetings will resume beginning in July 2008. The dates, times and locations of these meetings will be posted at our Internet Web site:
Written comments on the need for change are being accepted. Send written comments to George Washington Plan Revision, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019-3050. Electronic comments should include “GW Plan Revision” in the subject line and be sent to:
Additional information on the GWNF Forest Plan is available at:
Ken Landgraf, Planning Staff Officer, or JoBeth Brown, Public Affairs Officer, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, (540) 265-5100.
Notification of initiation of plan revision process for the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan was provided in the
Prior to injunction of the 2005 planning rule the George Washington National Forest had developed a draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report on the need for change. The Forest had just begun to engage the American public in a dialogue on what they thought needed to be changed from the 1993 revised Forest Plan. Only one series of public meetings had occurred during March 2007 prior to the injunction.
Based primarily on the discussion above, I find that the planning actions taken prior to April 21, 2008 conform to the planning process of the 2008 planning rule and for that reason the plan revision process does not need to be restarted.
The GWNF Forest Plan was last revised in 1993. Planning regulations require that plans be revised at least every 15 years. The 1993 revision was a major effort that involved the participation of many stakeholders. The purpose of the current revision is to examine management direction that needs to change and determine how best to make those changes.
Based upon new information acquired in the past year, the Forest Service has appended its initial Comprehensive Evaluation Report of February 2007 with social and economic conditions and trends. The George Washington National Forest is resuming its plan revision process by seeking additional public comments on the need to change the 1993 plan.
After resumption of the planning process, the Forest Service will hold a series of public meetings. The Forest Supervisor will then determine which issues will be carried forward for further analysis in the revision process.
Additional public meetings will then be held throughout the summer and fall of 2008 to discuss development of the Forest Plan components in response to the issues that will be carried forward for further analysis. In early spring of 2009 the Forest Service expects to release a Proposed Forest Plan for formal public review and comment. A notice will be published in the
A number of documents are available for review. These are available at the Web site
A series of public meetings will be held beginning in July 2008. The planning process will emphasize those things that need to change from the 1993 Forest Plan. The focus of the current planning regulations is on establishing a collaborative approach to planning. Therefore, the best opportunity for dialogue is to participate in the discussions at the various public meetings to be held throughout the process. These meetings will all be announced on the GWNF Web site. A formal comment opportunity will be provided when the Proposed Forest Plan is completed.
Only parties that participate in the planning process through the submission of written comments can submit an objection pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13(a).
The Forest Supervisor, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, is the Responsible Official (36 CFR 219.2(b)(1)).
16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR 219.14; 73 FR 21468, April 21, 2008.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.
Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact.
Pursuant to Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Penchant Basin Natural Resources Plan (TE-34), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
Kevin D. Norton, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3737 Government Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302; telephone (318) 473-7751.
The environmental assessment of the federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Kevin D. Norton, State Conservationist, has determined that preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.
The project is expected to creation, protect, and/or restore 675 net acres of emergent marsh over 20 years. The proposed project consists of installing approximately 6,520 feet of foreshore rock dike along the southern bank of Bayou Chene at its intersection with Bayou Penchant, creating 35 acres of marsh along the southern bank of Bayou Chene at its intersection with Bayou Penchant, installing 10-48″corrugated metal pipe with flap gates in Superior Canal at the Mauvais Bois ridge, installing one steel sheetpile weir with a 10 ft. wide boat bay and six flap gated openings at Brady Canal, installing approximately 12,000 feet of bankline maintenance on the north bank of Bayou Decade from Lake Decade to Turtle Bayou, installing approximately 14,000 feet of earthen embankment on the north bank of Bayou Decade from Voss Canal to Lost Lake, and two sheetpile weirs with 10 ft. wide boat bays along the north bank of Bayou Decade.
The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data collected during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Kevin D. Norton.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
Notice is hereby given that the U.S Arctic Research Commission will hold its 87th meeting in Fairbanks, AK from June 29 to July 3, 2008. The business session, open to the public, will commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 30 and continue throughout the week in conjunction with the Ninth International Permafrost Conference. The Commission will undertake a series of field trips to research facilities in and around Fairbanks.
(1) Call to order and approval of the agenda.
(2) Approval of the minutes of the 86th meeting.
(3) Reports from Commissioners.
(4) Internal Commission business and administration.
The focus of the meeting will be reports and updates on programs and research projects affecting the Arctic.
Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.
Contact person for more information: John Farrell, Executive Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2008.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Cynthia M. Wrenn-Yorker, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K319, Washington, DC 20233-6100; telephone (301) 763-1383.
The Census Bureau conducts the annual Company Organization Survey (COS) to update and maintain a central, multipurpose Business Register (BR). In particular, the COS supplies critical information on the composition, organizational structure, and operating characteristics of multi-location companies.
The Census Bureau will conduct the 2008 COS in a similar manner as the 2006 COS. (In 2007 the COS was conducted in conjunction with the 2007 Economic Census to minimize response burden). These collections will direct inquiries to approximately 43,000 multi-establishment companies, which operate over 1.2 million establishments. This panel will be drawn from the BR universe of nearly 200,000 multi-establishment companies, which operate 1.6 million establishments. Additionally, the panel will include approximately 5,000 large single-establishment companies that may have added locations during the year.
The mailing list for the 2008 COS will include a certainty component, consisting of all multi-establishment companies with 250 or more employees, and those multi-establishment companies with administrative record values that indicate organizational changes. A non-certainty component will be drawn from the remaining multi-establishment companies based on employment size. The mailing list also will include entities that are most likely to have added establishments at other locations.
The primary collection medium for the COS is a paper questionnaire; however, many enterprises will submit automated/electronic COS reports. For 2008, electronic reporting will be available to all COS respondents. Companies will receive and return responses by secure Internet transmission. Companies that cannot use the Internet will receive a CD-ROM containing their electronic data. All respondents will be allowed to mail the data via diskette or CD-ROM or submit their response data via the Internet. COS data is identical for all of the reporting modes.
The instrument will include inquiries on ownership or control by domestic or foreign parents, ownership of foreign affiliates, and leased employment. Further, the instrument will list an inventory of establishments belonging to the company and its subsidiaries, and request updates to these inventories, including additions, deletions, and changes to information on Employer Identification Number, name and address, and industrial classification, end-of-year operating status, mid-March employment, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll.
Additionally, the Census Bureau will ask certain questions in the 2008 COS in order to enhance content. We will include questions on leased employees working in the company, questions on
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 08-00004.
On June 19, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Sirius Chemical Group, Inc. (“SCG”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted.
Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by E-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 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 (2006).
Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR section 325.6(b), which requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
All products.
All services.
Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets that relate to Products and Services.
Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations.
The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).
1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights, and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, SCG may:
a. Provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services;
b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients;
c. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets;
d. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive agreements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets;
e. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights;
f. Allocate export orders among Suppliers;
g. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets;
h. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights; and
i. Enter into contracts for shipping of Products to Export Markets.
2. SCG may exchange information on a one-to-one basis with individual Suppliers regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules for the purpose of determining the availability of Products for export and coordinating export with distributors.
1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations, SCG will not intentionally disclose,
2. SCG will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation of a person protected by this Certificate of Review continue to comply with the standard of Section 303(a) of the Act.
“Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights.
This Certificate protects SCG and its directors, officers, and employees acting on its behalf, from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions.
This Certificate continues in effect from the effective date indicated below until it is relinquished, modified, or revoked as provided in the Act and the Regulations.
Nothing in this Certificate prohibits SCG from engaging in conduct not specified in this Certificate, but such conduct is subject to the normal application of the antitrust laws.
The issuance of this Certificate of Review to SCG by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Attorney General under the provisions of the Act does not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, an endorsement or opinion of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General concerning either (a) the viability or quality of the business plans of SCG or (b) the legality of such business plans of SCG under the laws of the United States (other than as provided in the Act) or under the laws of any foreign country.
The application of this Certificate to conduct in Export Trade where the United States Government is the buyer or where the United States Government bears more than half the cost of the transaction is subject to the limitations set forth in Section V.(D.) of the “Guidelines for the Issuance of Export Trade Certificates of Review (Second Edition),” 50 FR 1786 (January 11, 1985).
A copy of the certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Notice of Application to Amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to Northwest Fruit Exporters.
Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued.
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, (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. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a non-confidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be non-confidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the non-confidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, non-confidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 84-19A12.”
A summary of the application for an amendment follows.
The original NFE Certificate was issued on June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984) and last amended on September 17, 2007 (72 FR 54000, September 21, 2007).
1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Lotus Fruit Packing, Inc., Brewster, Washington; Obert Cold Storage, Zillah, Washington; and Tree To You, LLC, Chelan, Washington; and
2. Delete the following companies as “Members” of the Certificate: Fox Orchards, Mattawa, Washington; Inland—Joseph Fruit Company, Wapato,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
June 24, 2008.
Devta Ohri, 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) 482-3853.
On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue 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 this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period to a maximum of 180 days.
Completion of the final results of the administrative review within the 120-day period in this case is not practicable because, following the preliminary results, the Department issued a comprehensive supplemental questionnaire concerning Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.'s (“Sunflag”) affiliations. In addition, the Department has received multiple deficiency comments from domestic interested parties. The Department requires additional time to analyze the Sunflag's supplemental questionnaire response and the comments from the domestic interested parties.
Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are fully extending the time period for issuing the final results of the administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the final results are now due no later than September 3, 2008.
This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has reached a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of laminated woven sacks (LWS) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
June 24, 2008.
Sean Carey, Gene Calvert, or Paul Matino, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964, (202) 482-3586, or (202) 482-4146, respectively.
The following events have occurred since the publication of the preliminary determination in the
Parties submitted timely comments on the Department's analysis of land-use rights as requested in the
On January 22, 2008, the Department decided not to verify SSJ/SLP.
On April 22, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination regarding the new subsidy allegations, which we had decided to investigate on November 2, 2007.
We received case briefs from the GOC, Aifudi, and petitioners on May 2, 2008. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on May 7, 2008. On May 8, 2008, the GOC's case brief was returned because the Department determined that it contained untimely new factual information, as well as timely filed new factual information related to the Department's
The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 2006.
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had received scope comments from petitioners, and that such comments would be addressed in the preliminary determination of the companion antidumping investigation. See Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at 67894. Based on those comments, the Department determined to amend the scope of the investigation and afforded interested parties the opportunity to comment on those changes. See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 5801 (January 31, 2008). No parties provided comments, and as such, we are making no changes to the scope as set forth in the preliminary determination in the companion antidumping investigation. See id.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics;
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500.
If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the International Trade Commission (ITC) must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry, or whether such imports materially retard the
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs and rebuttal briefs on the
For purposes of this final determination, we have relied on facts available and have used adverse inferences to determine the countervailable subsidy rates for the four mandatory company respondents: Han Shing Chemical, Ningbo, Qilu, and SSJ/SLP, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. In addition, we are also applying facts available with an adverse inference, in part, with respect to our determination of the countervailability of two programs: Government Policy Lending and Government Provision of Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration. A full discussion of our decision to apply adverse facts available is presented in the
Pursuant to section 705(a)(2) of the Act, in order to find critical circumstances, the Department must find that there are countervailable subsidies that are inconsistent with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the Subsidies Agreement), and that there have been massive imports over a relatively short period (
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we determine the total countervailable subsidy rates to be:
In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have determined that the most reasonable method for determining the all others rate is a simple average of the four mandatory respondents' AFA rates and the calculated rate for Aifudi.
Suspension of Liquidation
Because we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances existed for entries of LWS produced/exported by Han Shing Chemical and Ningbo, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, to suspend liquidation of entries of LWS produced/exported by Han Shing Chemical and Ningbo which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 3, 2007, and to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 4, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered on or after April 1, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from Han Shing Chemical and Ningbo from September 4, 2007 through April 1, 2008 and, for all other entries, to continue the suspension of liquidation from December 3, 2007 through April 1, 2008. Now that the Department has reached a final affirmative determination of critical circumstances for Qilu and SSJ/SLP, pursuant to section 705(c)(4)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to apply the previously ordered suspension of liquidation for Qilu and SSJ/SLP retroactively to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 4, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the
If the ITC issues a final affirmative determination of injury, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act for all entries, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise at the rates indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, threat of material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
A. Application of Facts Available, Including the Application of Adverse Inferences
B. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available
A. Attribution of Subsidies and Cross-Ownership
B. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rate
A. Programs Determined to Be Countervailable
B. Program Determined to Be Not Countervailable
C. Programs Determined to Be Not Used by Aifudi
D. Programs Determined to Be Terminated
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has made a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (“LWR”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section, below.
June 24, 2008./P>
Shane Subler, or Damian Felton, 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) 482-0189, or (202) 482-0133 respectively.
The Petitioners in this investigation are the Allied Tube & Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube, California Tube and Steel, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest, Inc. Welded Tube and Western Tube (collectively, “Petitioners”).
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.
The following events have occurred since the announcement of the preliminary determination published in the
On December 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaires were issued to the Government of the People's Republic of China (“GOC”); Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Lets Win”); and Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-making Co., Ltd. and its affiliates, Jiangsu Zhongjia Steel Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Zhongxin Steel Product Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Baoshuiqu Jiaqi International Business Co.; and Jiangsu Qiyuan Group Co., Ltd. (“collectively ZZ Pipe”). We received responses to these questionnaires from Lets Win on December 18, 2007, from ZZ Pipe on December 26, 2007, and from the GOC on December 28 and December 31, 2007.
On December 27, 2007, the Department published an
The GOC and ZZ Pipe submitted factual information regarding the GOC's provision of land within various deadlines set by the Department subsequent to the
From January 7 through January 18, 2008, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, Lets Win, and ZZ Pipe.
On April 21, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination regarding the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration.
We received case briefs from the GOC and Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (“GWSP”) and Petitioners on April 30, 2008. Rebuttal briefs were submitted by the GOC, GWSP and Petitioners on May 5, 2008, and by Lets Win on May 6, 2008. A hearing for this investigation was held on May 9, 2008.
The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section (LWR), having a wall thickness of less than 4mm.
The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On August 28, 2007, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of LWR.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if,
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b)
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.”
The Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the final determination for Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao”) on adverse facts available. Qingdao did not respond to the Department's requests on August 7 and October 24, 2007, to respond to the CVD questionnaire. By failing to submit a response to the Department's CVD questionnaire, Qingdao did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation. Consequently, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act to ensure that Qingdao will not obtain a more favorable result than had it fully complied with our request in this investigation. Thus, our final determination for Qingdao is based on total AFA.
We have also concluded that it is appropriate to apply adverse facts available to determine the percentage of hot-rolled steel production accounted for by state-owned enterprises. Specifically, the GOC reported that the China Iron and Steel Association (“CISA”) determined the ownership structure of certain hot-rolled steel producers. Subsequently, we learned that the reported ownership structures were developed by the GOC's legal counsel, not by CISA as the GOC claimed. Therefore, the GOC misrepresented the source of the reported ownership structure of hot-rolled steel producers.
Consequently, we find that the GOC did not act to the best of its ability because they failed to properly disclose how the reported ownership structures of CISA members were obtained. In misrepresenting how the information was obtained, the GOC did not provide the Department with “full and complete answers.”
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding.
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.”
Therefore, with respect to Qingdao, for every program based on the provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration, the Department has used ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. For grant programs we are relying on the rate applied to ZZ Pipe in the form of revenue forgone in relation to its purchase of land-use rights. For value added tax (“VAT”) programs, we are unable to utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy programs. Therefore, for VAT programs, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Similarly, neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from loan programs; hence, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Since we do not have information regarding the location of Qingdao, we are attributing all three loan programs to Qingdao, in the calculation of their AFA rate. In the instant investigation, there is no record evidence indicating that Qingdao did not operate within the provinces at issue in this investigation (
Finally, for the six alleged income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income tax rates or the reduction or exemption from income tax, we continue to apply an adverse inference that Qingdao paid no income tax during the period of investigation (
We do not need to corroborate these rates because they are not considered secondary information as they are based on information obtained in the course of this investigation, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act.
Regarding the application of adverse facts available to the GOC, we have treated companies as state-owned where the GOC did not provide information regarding the companies' ownership.
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for each of the companies investigated, Lets Win, ZZ Pipe and for Qingdao. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
As a result of our
On December 27, 2007, the Department issued its
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after March 29, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from November 30, 2007 through March 28, 2008. This did not apply to Lets Win and ZZ Pipe as their entries were not being suspended.
We will issue a countervailing duty order and suspend liquidation for Lets Win and ZZ Pipe as well as reinstate the suspension of liquidation for Qingdao and all other companies under section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
June 24, 2008.
On January 31, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of laminated woven sacks (“LWS”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the mandatory respondents. We determine that LWS from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice.
Javier Barrientos, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2243.
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on January 31, 2008.
We issued Aifudi
Between March 31 and April 11, 2008, the Department conducted verifications of Aifudi and its constructed export price (CEP) entities.
We invited parties to comment on the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,” dated June 16, 2008 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room 1217, and is accessible on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Based on our analysis of information on the record of this investigation, and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for Aifudi. For SSJ, see Use of Facts Available section below. For Aifudi, we have determined that printing cylinders are not a factor of production, and should be treated as factory overhead. For further details, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We have also revalued several of the surrogate values used in the
In addition, we have incorporated, where applicable, post-preliminary clarifications based on verification and made certain clerical error corrections for Aifudi. For further details on these company-specific changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 8 and 9;
The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics;
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that, if an interested party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if: (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.”
For this final determination, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, we have determined that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted for SSJ because of its refusal to answer the Department's supplemental questionnaire.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Aifudi for use in our final determination.
In the
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.
In the
For the final determination, however, we collected an additional three months of data from Aifudi. After analyzing the additional data, we continue to find that Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants had massive imports of LWS over a relatively short period of time.
Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the petition rate of 91.73 percent by comparing the petition margin to the individual CONNUM margins for Aifudi. See Aifudi Final Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I. We found that since the petition margin of 91.73 percent was within the range of CONNUM margins, we find that the margin of 91.73 percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 91.73 percent is corroborated to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI:
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).
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 31, 2008, the date of publication of the
The Department continues to find that critical circumstances exist for Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants and therefore we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 2007, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances, we instructed CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise for Aifudi, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after November 2, 2007, which is 90 days prior to January 31, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice also serves as a reminder to the 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. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
(June 24, 2008.
On January 30, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary determination in the investigation of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWR) from Mexico.
The Department has determined that LWR from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final margins of sales at less than fair value are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination of Investigation.”
Patrick Edwards or Judy Lao, 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) 482-8029 or (202) 482-7924, respectively.
The preliminary determination in this investigation was published on January 30, 2008.
We conducted sales and cost verifications of the responses (including the downstream sales responses) submitted by Maquilacero and PROLAMSA.
Based on the Department's findings at verification, as well as the minor corrections presented by Maquilacero and PROLAMSA at the start of their respective verifications, we requested respondents to submit revised sales databases.
We have also determined that an allegation of targeted dumping submitted by petitioners on December 26, 2007, and supplemented on January 25, 2008, was inadequate.
Due to the release of the Targeted Dumping Memo and the CM Program Changes Memo subsequent to the release of the verification reports in this investigation, the Department extended the briefing schedule for parties to file case and rebuttal briefs by two days. As such, we received a case brief from petitioners, PROLAMSA, and Maquilacero on May 7, 2008; the same parties filed rebuttal briefs on May 12, 2008. On May 23, 2008, the Department requested that PROLAMSA submit an electronic version of its revised cost database, reflecting the adjustments made to the database for certain minor corrections presented during its cost verification, and which was also filed in hard-copy on the official record on February 27, 2008.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico (2006-2007)” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 13, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision Memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
We determined that Petitioners' allegations of targeted dumping failed to provide a reasonable basis to find a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers or regions. We determined further that Petitioners had not demonstrated that any such differences could not be taken into account using the average-to-average methodology, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. We concluded that, for the final determination, we should continue to utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final margins for respondents. For this final determination, we continue to utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final margins for Maquilacero and PROLAMSA for the reasons set forth in the Decision Memorandum.
The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon quality light walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm.
The term carbon quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.
The description of carbon quality is intended to identify carbon quality products within the scope. The welded carbon quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for
The period of investigation is from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation for both Maquilacero and PROLAMSA. For a discussion of these changes,
For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to provide information we requested, certain producers and/or exporters of LWR from Mexico did not act to the best of their ability in responding to our requests for information.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007:
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(1), we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 30, 2008, the date of the publication of
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the
This notice also 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. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
June 24, 2008.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWR) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. The period covered by the investigation is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007 (the POI).
Jeff Pedersen or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769 and 482-4406, respectively.
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on January 30, 2008.
In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the
All of the issues that were raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted in this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 13, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues that are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), at the Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have revised ZZPC's and Lets Win's dumping margins to reflect the following changes:
1. We based ZZPC's dumping margin on total adverse facts available.
2. We used different surrogates to value certain steel inputs and packing materials.
3. We averaged one additional surrogate company's data with those surrogate companies' data used in the
4. Since the release of the preliminary determination, more recent labor data for the PRC has become available, which we have used in calculating Lets Win's final margin.
For a detailed analysis of the margin calculation for Lets Win,
We assigned the separate rates applicants the dumping margin that we calculated for Lets Win.
The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm.
The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
In the
Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act provides that, if an interested party provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Additionally, section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available if it makes the additional finding that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” The Department was not able to verify the steel consumption quantities reported or the type of steel used by ZZPC. Furthermore, we have determined that the use of adverse inferences is warranted because ZZPC did not act to the best of its ability in reporting the quantity of steel consumed and the type of steel used. Given the importance of the steel input, we have based ZZPC's dumping margin on total adverse facts available. Specifically, we based ZZPC's dumping margin on the highest rate calculated in this investigation, 264.64%%.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of the respondents' information.
In the
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the
In the
Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and only the exporters listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate (
In
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007:
We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the following dates: (1) for ZZPC, Lets Win, and the separate rate companies, on or after January 30, 2008, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess upon further instruction by the Department antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice also serves as a reminder to the 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. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 31, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published a preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea.
We continue to find that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.”
June 24, 2008.
Mark Flessner or Robert James, 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) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On January 31, 2008, the Department published the preliminary determination and invited interested parties to comment.
Only Nexteel responded fully to the Section A, B, C, and D questionnaires. (For a complete background concerning the involvement of companies other than Nexteel,
Based upon the results of verification, we have made no changes to the dumping calculations; a revision of Nexteel’s databases was, however, required. On December 26, 2007, Petitioners timely filed with the Department an allegation of targeted dumping with respect to Nexteel. Nexteel filed comments regarding Petitioners’ allegation on January 3, 2008. Upon review of Petitioners’ allegation, the Department determined that further information was needed in order to adequately analyze Petitioners’ allegation. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Petitioners on January 14, 2008, requesting that they address deficiencies identified by the Department. See Letter from Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, to Petitioners, dated January 14, 2008. Because there was a need for supplemental information regarding the allegation, we did not have sufficient bases for making a finding regarding Petitioners’ allegations of targeted dumping prior to the preliminary determination. On January 25, 2008, Petitioners submitted a response to the
We conducted a verification of Nexteel’s cost of production responses on March 6-12, 2008.
On May 2, 2008, we placed on the record the memorandum from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, to Richard O. Weible, Office Director, entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Korea: Final Analysis on Targeting Dumping” (
We received a case brief from Petitioners on May 9, 2008. We received a rebuttal brief from Nexteel on May 16, 2008. We received no request for a public hearing, so no hearing was held.
The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
We calculated export price and normal value based on the same methodologies used in the
We calculated the cost of production and constructed value for Nexteel based on the same methodologies used in the
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, we verified the information submitted by respondents during the periods March 6-12, 2008 (cost) and March 13-18, 2008 (sales) (
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea” (
We determine that Petitioners’ allegations of targeted dumping failed to provide a reasonable basis to find a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers or regions. We determine further that Petitioners had not demonstrated that any such differences could not be taken into account using the average-to-average methodology, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. We conclude that, for the final determination, we should continue to utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final margins for Nexteel for the reasons set forth in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Korea that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 31, 2008, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of
This notice also 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. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
June 24, 2008.
Devta Ohri, 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) 482-3853.
On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the
Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (
The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order.
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. Ambica withdrew its request for an administrative review on May 16, 2008, which is within the 90-day deadline. No other party had requested a review of Ambica. Therefore, the Department rescinds this administrative review of Ambica, covering the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008 (“2007-2008 AR”). However, we note that the 2007-2008 AR still continues with respect to Venus Wire Industries, Pvt. Ltd.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
June 24, 2008.
Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On February 19, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe from the People's Republic of China.
On June 10, 2008, the petitioners
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for one new scientific research permit and one permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received two scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by e-mail to
Blane Bellerud, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2338, Fax: 503-231-2318, e-mail:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Chum salmon (
Steelhead (
Coho salmon (
Sockeye salmon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
Permit 1318 currently authorizes the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to take juvenile UCR Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, SR steelhead, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, SR spr/sum
The purpose of the research is to gather information on fish population structure, abundance, genetics, disease occurrences, and species interactions throughout many anadromous fish-bearing basins in Oregon. That information would be used to direct management actions to benefit listed species. Juvenile salmonids would be collected during boat electrofishing operations in the subbasins listed in the project titles above. Some fish would be anesthetized, sampled for length and weight, allowed to recover from the anesthesia, and released; most would only be shocked and allowed to swim away, or be netted and immediately released. The ODFW does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is requesting a 5-year research permit to take LCR Chinook salmon, CR coho salmon, and LCR steelhead during fish collection and transport activities on the Cowlitz River, Washington. The purpose of the research is to determine the fishes' response to being collected and transported around two dams that currently have no downstream fish passage. The activities will take place at a facility that is co-located with the Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric dam on the upper Cowlitz River in southeastern Washington State.
The fish collection facility is a key component of ongoing efforts to re-establish self-supporting populations of anadromous salmonids in the upper Cowlitz river basin. The proposed research seeks to (1) improve fish collection efficiency by modifying the operation and physical structure of the fish collection facility, and (2) develop an ongoing transportation program to maintain fish populations. The research would benefit the fish by helping them get access to (and egress from) new habitat that was previously cut off by impassible barriers. Fish collected at the facility would be transported by truck and released in the free-flowing section of the Cowlitz River downstream of the hydropower projects. Scales and other biological samples would be taken from some of the fish. The BPA does not intend to kill any of the fish being studied, but a small percentage of them may be killed as an unintended result of the research.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; selection of an authorized distributor.
NMFS announces the renewal of permits to SeaShare (formerly Northwest Food Strategies) authorizing this organization to distribute Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut to economically disadvantaged individuals under the prohibited species donation (PSD) program. Salmon and halibut are caught incidentally during directed fishing for groundfish with trawl gear off Alaska. This action is necessary to comply with provisions of the PSD program and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The permits are effective from August 15, 2008, through August 15, 2011.
Copies of the PSD permits for salmon and halibut may be obtained by mail from NMFS, Alaska Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; or via the Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region website at
Becky Carls, 907-586-7228.
Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) is managed by NMFS in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the BSAI and the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the GOA (FMPs). These FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
Amendments 26 and 29 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, authorize a salmon donation program and were approved by NMFS on July 10, 1996; a final rule implementing this program was published in the
Regulations at § 679.26 authorize the voluntary distribution of salmon and halibut taken incidentally in the groundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska, to economically disadvantaged individuals by tax-exempt organizations through an authorized distributor. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), may select one or more tax-exempt organizations to be authorized distributors, as defined by § 679.2, based on the information submitted by applicants under § 679.26. After review of qualified applicants, NMFS must announce the selection of authorized distributor(s) in the
On March 24, 2008, the Acting Regional Administrator received two applications from SeaShare to renew both its salmon and halibut PSD permits that were issued August 15, 2005 (70 FR 40987, July 15, 2005). Revisions to the applications were received on May 6, 2008. The current salmon and halibut PSD permits issued to SeaShare authorize SeaShare to participate in the PSD program through August 15, 2008.
The Acting Regional Administrator reviewed the applications and determined that they are complete and that SeaShare continues to meet the requirements for a PSD program authorized distributor. As required by § 679.26(b)(2), the Acting Regional Administrator based his selection on the following criteria:
1.
2.
In 2005, 2006, and 2007, SeaShare received 483,359 pounds, 171,628 pounds, and 87,330 pounds, respectively, of salmon for distribution to food bank organizations. During these same years, SeaShare received 20,960 pounds, 8,757 pounds, and 16,026 pounds, respectively, of halibut for distribution to food bank organizations. NMFS does not have information to convert accurately the net weights of salmon and halibut to numbers of salmon and numbers of halibut.
3.
Halibut incidental catch amounts are constrained by an annual prohibited species catch limit in the BSAI and GOA. Future halibut incidental catch levels likely will be similar to those experienced in 2006 and 2007. Salmon prohibited species incidental catch limits are established for the BSAI pollock fisheries that when attained, result in the closure of specified fishing grounds for a specified period of time. An exemption to these closures is provided to participants in an intercooperative agreement to reduce salmon bycatch rates under Amendment 84 to the BSAI FMP (72 FR 61070, October 29, 2007). Salmon incidental catch limits are not established for the GOA. In general, salmon incidental catch amounts tend to be variable between years, making accurate prediction of future incidental take amounts difficult.
4.
The PSD permits are issued to SeaShare for a 3-year period unless suspended or revoked. They may not be transferred; however, they may be renewed following the application procedures in § 679.26.
If the authorized distributor modifies any information on the PSD permit application submitted under § 679.26(b)(1)(xi) or (b)(1)(xiii), the authorized distributor must submit a modified list of participants or a modified list of delivery locations to the Regional Administrator.
These permits may be suspended, modified, or revoked under 15 CFR part 904 for noncompliance with terms and conditions specified in the permit or for a violation of this section or other regulations in 50 CFR part 679.
This action is taken under § 679.26.
16 U.S.C. 773
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that Michael Etnier, Ph.D., Box 353100, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98227 has been issued a permit to import marine mammal specimens for purposes of scientific research.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521;
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203 (1-800-358-2104).
Kate Swails or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289.
On January 25, 2008, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes Dr. Etnier to possess and import/export marine mammal and endangered and threatened species parts (hard and soft) from the orders of Cetacea, Pinnipedia, and Carnivora (sea otter,
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2008.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert A. Clarke, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7735; or by e-mail at
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program was originally established between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on July 3, 2006. The PPH program allows applicants whose claims are determined to be patentable in the office of first filing to have the corresponding application that is filed in the office of second filing be advanced out of turn for examination. At the same time, the PPH program allows the office of second filing to exploit the search and examination results of the office of first filing, which increases examination efficiency and improves patent quality. The USPTO and the JPO agreed at the November 2007 Trilateral Conference to fully implement the PPH program on a permanent basis starting on January 4, 2008.
The USPTO entered into a PPH pilot program with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) on September 4, 2007. Additional PPH pilot programs have also recently been established between the USPTO and the
In addition to the PPH program, the USPTO and the JPO also participate in a work-sharing pilot project called the “New Route.” Under the New Route framework, a filing in one member office of this arrangement would be deemed a filing in all member offices. The first office and applicant would be given a 30-month processing time frame in which to make available a first office action and any necessary translations to the second office(s), and the second office(s) would exploit the search and examination results in conducting their own examination. The New Route proposal permits the search and examination results of the first office to be transmitted to the second office(s) according to an internationally coordinated time frame. By allowing the second office to exploit the search and examination results of the first office, the primary benefits of the New Route program would be to reduce overall office workload, minimize duplication of search efforts, and increase examination quality. Because the New Route, as envisioned, would require changes in law in the USPTO and the JPO, the USPTO and the JPO agreed to commence a pilot project to test the New Route concept based on filing scenarios currently available under existing law in both offices. The New Route pilot project began on January 28, 2008, and will end when the number of requests reaches 50 or at the expiration of one year, whichever occurs first.
This information collection previously included two forms, Request for Participation in the New Route Pilot Program Between the JPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/10) and Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program Between the (1) JPO or (2) UKIPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20), which may be used by applicants to request participation in the programs and to ensure that they meet the program requirements. Since the PPH program with the JPO has been fully implemented, Form PTO/SB/20 has been revised as Form PTO/SB/20JP for use with the JPO and a separate Form PTO/SB/20UK has been created for the ongoing pilot program with the UKIPO. Similar forms have been created for the PPH pilot programs with the CIPO, the KIPO, and the IPAU. These additional PPH pilot program forms are being added to this collection.
Requests to participate in the New Route pilot program must be submitted by fax to the Office of the Commissioner for Patents (571-273-0125) to ensure that the request is processed in a timely manner. Requests to participate in the PPH programs must be submitted online using EFS-Web, the USPTO's web-based electronic filing system.
The filing fee for requests to participate in the New Route or PPH programs is $130 under 37 CFR 1.17(h). Using the $130 fee, the USPTO estimates that the total filing fees for this collection would be $162,500 per year.
There are also recordkeeping costs associated with submitting the PPH forms in this collection online through EFS-Web. When submitting forms through EFS-Web, the USPTO recommends that customers print and retain a copy of the acknowledgment receipt as evidence of the successful submission. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print a copy of the acknowledgment receipt and that approximately 1,200 submissions in this collection will be filed online, for a total of approximately 1 hour per year. The USPTO expects that these receipts will be printed by paraprofessionals at an estimated rate of $90 per hour, for a total recordkeeping cost of $90 per year.
The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees and recordkeeping costs is estimated to be $162,590 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2008.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert A. Clarke, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7735; or by e-mail to
Under 35 U.S.C. 2 and 37 CFR 1.31-1.36, a patent applicant or assignee of record may grant power of attorney to a person who is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to act for them in a patent or application. A power of attorney may also be revoked, and a registered practitioner may also withdraw as attorney or agent of record under 37 CFR 1.36. The rules of practice (37 CFR 1.33) also provide for the applicant, assignee, or practitioner of record to supply a correspondence address and daytime telephone number for receiving notices, official letters, and other communications from the USPTO. Maintaining a correct and updated correspondence address is necessary so that official correspondence from the USPTO related to a patent or application will be properly received by the applicant, assignee, or practitioner.
The USPTO's Customer Number practice permits applicants, assignees, and practitioners of record to change the correspondence address or representatives of record for a number of patents or applications with one change request instead of filing separate requests for each patent or application. Customers may request a Customer Number from the USPTO and associate this Customer Number with a correspondence address or a list of registered practitioners. Any changes to the address or practitioner information associated with a Customer Number will be applied to all patents and applications associated with that Customer Number.
The Customer Number practice is optional, in that changes of correspondence address or power of attorney may be filed separately for each patent or application without using a Customer Number. However, a Customer Number associated with the correspondence address for a patent application is required in order to access private information about the application using the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, which is available through the USPTO Web site. The PAIR system allows authorized individuals secure online access to application status information, but only for patent applications that are linked to a Customer Number. Customer Numbers may be associated with U.S. patent applications as well as international Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications. The use of a Customer Number is also required in order to grant power of attorney to more than ten practitioners or to establish a separate “fee address” for maintenance fee purposes that is different from the correspondence address for a patent or application.
In addition to the forms offered by the USPTO to assist customers with providing the information in this collection, customers may also format requests using a Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet to designate or change the correspondence address or fee address for a list of patents or applications by associating them with a Customer Number. The Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet must be submitted to the USPTO on a computer-readable diskette or compact disc (CD), accompanied by a signed cover letter requesting entry of the address changes for the listed patents and applications. The spreadsheet and cover letter must be mailed to the USPTO and cannot be filed electronically. Customers may download a Microsoft Excel template with instructions from the USPTO Web site to assist them in preparing the spreadsheet in the proper format. The Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet may not be used to change the power of attorney for patents or applications.
This information collection includes the information necessary to submit a request to grant or revoke power of attorney for a patent application and for a registered practitioner to withdraw as attorney or agent of record for a patent application. This collection also includes the information necessary to request a Customer Number and associate a correspondence address or list of practitioners with this Customer Number, to change the correspondence address or practitioners associated with a Customer Number, and to designate or change the correspondence address or fee address for one or more patents or applications by using a Customer Number.
The USPTO is revising a form in this collection, Request for Withdrawal as Attorney or Agent and Change of Correspondence Address (PTO/SB/83), to allow the practitioner requesting withdrawal to certify that proper notice has been given to the client and that all papers and property to which the client is entitled have been delivered. The
By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.
The two petitions in this collection have associated filing fees. The filing fee for both the Petition Under 37 CFR 1.36(a) to Revoke Power of Attorney by Fewer than All the Applicants and the Petition to Waive 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4) and Grant Power of Attorney by Fewer than All the Applicants is currently $400 (37 CFR 1.17(f)). Using the $400 fee for these petitions, the USPTO estimates that the total filing fees for this collection would be $10,000 per year.
There are recordkeeping costs associated with submitting forms in this collection electronically through EFS-Web, the USPTO's online filing system. When submitting forms through EFS-Web, the USPTO recommends that customers print and retain a copy of the acknowledgment receipt as evidence of the successful submission. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print a copy of the acknowledgment receipt and that approximately 311,796 of the submissions in this collection will be filed online, for a total of approximately 312 hours per year. The USPTO expects that these receipts will be printed by paraprofessionals at an estimated rate of $90 per hour, for a total recordkeeping cost of $28,080 per year.
This collection has capital start-up costs associated with the Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet, which must be submitted to the USPTO on a diskette or CD. This process requires additional supplies, including blank diskettes or recordable CD media and padded envelopes for shipping. The USPTO estimates that the cost of these supplies will be approximately $2 per submission, for a total capital start-up cost of $4,000 per year.
The public may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 83 cents for all items except for the Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet and that approximately 255,106 of the non-spreadsheet items
The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees, recordkeeping costs, capital start-up costs, and postage costs is estimated to be $257,178 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-42 with attached transmittal, and policy justification.
Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment.
Notice.
This Notice is provided pursuant to section 2905(b)(7)(B)(ii) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. It provides a partial list of military installations closing or realigning pursuant to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Report. It also provides a corresponding listing of the Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) recognized by the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), as well as the points of contact, addresses, and telephone numbers for the LRAs for those installations. Representatives of state and local governments, homeless providers, and other parties interested in the redevelopment of an installation should contact the person or organization listed. The following information will also be published simultaneously in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of each installation. There will be additional Notices providing this same information about LRAs for other closing or realigning installations where surplus government property is available as those LRAs are recognized by the OEA.
Director, Office of Economic Adjustment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 400 Army Navy Drive, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202-4704, (703) 604-6020.
Department of Defense; Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy).
Notice.
This is the final notice that the Department of Defense (DoD or “the Department”), is establishing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for DoD firefighter personnel. This action is pursuant to the authority granted to DoD by Section 591.104 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.
June 23, 2008.
Ms. Mary Olson, (703) 901-6840.
DoD is implementing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for firefighter personnel. This is in accordance with 5 CFR 591.104, which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103. The current $400.00 limit has become inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of DoD firefighters. The uniform items for uniformed firefighter personnel include the following items or similar items such as: Work shirts, work pants, work t-shirts, work coat, work cap, belt, dress shirts, dress pants, dress coat, dress shoes, dress hat, dress tie, weather gear, tie clips, tie bars, rank insignia, badges, patches, and name tags. The itemized total uniform cost for the listed items is $1604.14. Based on these current costs, the Department is increasing the initial maximum uniform allowance for uniformed firefighter personnel to $1,600.00. A notice of this planned action was published in the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
Notice to Add a New System of Records.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is proposing to add a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This action will be effective without further notice on July 24, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the FOIA/PA Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
Ms. Linda Krabbenhoft at (303) 676-6045.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on June 13, 2008, to the House Committee on Government on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-
Non-appropriated Funds Central Payroll System (NAFCPS).
Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Enterprise Computing Center, Ogden, 7879 Wardleigh Road, Hill Air Force Base, Utah 84058-5997.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS-Texarkana, PO BOX 611, Texarkana, Texas 75505-6111.
Department of Defense (DoD) Non-appropriated fund civilian employees in the following agencies: Department of the Army, National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Texarkana.
Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN) and information concerning individual records of appointment or assignment; official authenticated time and attendance records, individual leave records, information on employee's federal, state and local tax withholding and allotments.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoDFMR) 7000.14-R Vol. 4; 5 U.S.C. Sections 2105c, 5531, and 5533; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
A system for maintaining and tracking pay of U.S. Army, Department of Defense and National Security Agency non-appropriated funds civilian employees. The system will calculate the net pay due each employee; provide a history of pay transaction, entitlements and deductions; maintain a record of leave accrued and taken; keep a schedule of bonds due and issued; record taxes paid; and respond to inquiries or claims.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DOD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the DoD compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Electronic storage media.
Individual's name and Social Security Number (SSN).
Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to records is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for a need-to-know. Access to computerized data is restricted by passwords, which are changed according to agency security policy.
Records may be temporary in nature and deleted when actions are completed, superseded, obsolete, or no longer needed. Other records may be cut off at the end of the payroll year, and then destroyed after 56 years. Records are destroyed by degaussing the electronic media and recycling hardcopy records. The recycled hardcopies are destroyed by shredding, burning, or pulping.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Indianapolis, Systems Management Directorate, 8899 E 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-1056.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, telephone number, and provide a reasonable description of what they are seeking.
Individuals seeking access to information about them contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, telephone number and provide a reasonable description of what they are seeking.
The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; 32 CFR part 324; or may be obtained from Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
From the individual concerned, DoD Components, National Security Agency and other Federal agencies.
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 7,380,548 entitled “Stove Apparatus” issued June 3, 2008. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Jeffrey DiTullio at U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, Kansas Street, Natick,
Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, in conjunction with the Avoyelles Parish Police Jury, the non-Federal sponsor, is undertaking studies to investigate the feasibility of restoring the Spring Bayou area ecosystem.
Initiate EIS, June 30, 2008.
Correspondence may be sent to Mr. Larry Marcy, U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg, CEMVK-PP-PQ, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183-3435.
Mr. Larry Marcy at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, telephone (601) 631-5965, fax (601) 631-5115, or e-mail at
A public scoping meeting will be held July 29, 2008, beginning at 7 p.m. at the Marksville Fire Department, 512 North Main Street, Marksville, Louisiana.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Clear Creek watershed drains portions of Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria counties, Texas, including portions of Houston and the smaller towns of League City, Friendswood and Pearland, among others. The watershed also forms part of the boundary between Harris County to the north and Galveston and Brazoria counties to the south. Clear Creek flows into the west side of upper Galveston Bay through Clear Lake. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will evaluate several flood detention and conveyance features to reduce flooding of homes and businesses in the Clear Creek Watershed. The study will focus on environmental and social conditions currently present and those likely to be affected by the proposed changes in the watershed. The flood-control project includes construction of several miles of high flow channel adjacent to the existing channel, while preserving the existing channel and floodplain forest. Detention of flood waters would also be provided in some areas where the high flow channel diverges from the low flow channel and in off-line detention areas adjacent to the creek. All flood control measures on Clear Creek occur upstream of the Dixie Farm Road crossing. The proposed project also includes widening three tributaries to Clear Creek, Mud Gully, Turkey Creek, and Mary's Creek, for improved conveyance of flood flows, with detention basins constructed adjacent to Mary's Creek and between Clear Creek and Mud Gully.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, TX 77553-1229.
Mr. Robert Heinly, (409) 766-3992, Planning Lead, Planning Section, Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division; or Ms. Andrea Catanzaro, (409) 766-6346, Environmental Lead, Environmental Section, Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, 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 August 25, 2008.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
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
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
This priority is:
Under Part B of IDEA, section 612(a)(14) requires States to ensure that special education teachers and related services personnel providing services are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. In implementing this requirement, States must ensure that local educational agencies (LEAs) take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified special education teachers and related services personnel to serve children with disabilities. Likewise, under Part C of IDEA, section 635(a)(8) and (9) requires States to maintain comprehensive systems of personnel development that include strategies to prepare, recruit, and retain early intervention service providers who are fully and appropriately qualified to provide early intervention services.
States and LEAs report challenges in recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education teachers, which could affect their ability to meet the Federal personnel requirements under IDEA. Throughout the United States, there is a chronic and pervasive shortage of special education teachers and this shortage is expected to increase over time (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). In addition, there is a severe shortage of special educators from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds that reflects the lack of diversity in the teacher population as a whole (McLeskey
Nationwide, there is a growing shortage of qualified school-based related services personnel, including audiologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists (Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, 2004). Part C early intervention and Part B preschool programs also report significant personnel shortages across disciplines serving infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities and their families (Center to Inform Personnel Preparation Policy and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education, 2007).
The current personnel shortage has multiple causes, including increases in (a) the number of positions created to meet the growing population of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, and (b) the number of special education personnel moving out of direct service roles to other positions in the field, switching to regular education, or leaving the profession altogether (McLeskey
To address these on-going challenges effectively, States must adopt evidence-based and comprehensive strategies to recruit new special education teachers, related services personnel, and early intervention personnel, retain the current workforce, and improve the skills of uncertified and inadequately prepared personnel. In 2003, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded the National Center for Special Education Personnel and Related Services Providers (Personnel Center) to help States develop and implement strategies to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of highly or fully qualified personnel. (Information on the work of the Personnel Center is available at
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of a National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities (Center). This Center will identify, disseminate, and assist States in implementing evidence-based recruitment and retention practices in order to help meet States' needs for highly or fully qualified special education, early intervention, and related services personnel, including paraprofessionals (qualified personnel).
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. The project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
(a) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;
For more information on logic models, the following Web site lists multiple online resources:
(b) A plan to implement the activities described in the
(c) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
(d) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual one-day planning meeting held in Washington, DC with the OSEP Project Officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
(2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(3) A four-day Technical Assistance and Dissemination meeting in Washington, DC during each year of the project period; and
(e) A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP.
With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Center must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
(a) During the first year of the project period, examine existing literature reviews and conduct literature reviews to identify evidence-based practices (e.g., mentoring programs) that have been shown to be effective in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel to serve infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. To the extent possible, the Center must use the standards established by the What Works Clearinghouse, (
(b) Review available State information related to shortages in personnel to meet the needs of children served through Part B and Part C programs from sources such as IDEA State Performance Plans (SPPs), IDEA Annual Performance Reports (APRs), and any other relevant sources to gain an understanding of States' personnel needs.
(a) Assist a minimum of four different States during each year of the project period in building their capacity to recruit and retain early intervention service personnel for lead agencies and special education and related services personnel for State educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs. Factors for consideration in selecting these States could include the demographic and geographic characteristics of each State, each State's recruitment and retention needs, and the previous initiatives focused on recruitment and retention that have taken place in the State. The Center must obtain approval from the OSEP Project Officer on the final selection of States.
To fulfill the requirements of paragraph (b) of the
To assist these States, the Center must—
(1) Provide technical assistance (TA) to the SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to increase their capacity, as appropriate, to—
(i) Create or improve data systems that can be used to identify State personnel needs and disaggregate highly qualified special education teacher (HQT) (as defined in § 300.18) data by student disability category (as defined in § 300.8), and use those data to inform decision-making on recruitment and retention efforts.
(ii) Develop and implement a plan to recruit individuals from communities within the State, particularly individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, to pursue careers in early intervention, special education, and related services and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used; and
(iii) Develop and implement a plan to support and increase the likelihood of retaining personnel in early intervention, special education, and related services positions within the State and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used.
(2) Develop and coordinate a national TA network comprised of a cadre of experts that the Center will use to provide TA to States to assist them in addressing recruitment and retention issues; and
(3) Synthesize and analyze State personnel data and disseminate this information to SEAs, LEAs, and lead agencies so that they can use these data to predict hiring needs and work with organizations, such as institutions of higher education (IHEs), including community colleges, to recruit and train personnel in high need areas.
(b) Conduct nationwide outreach activities to encourage individuals, including individuals with disabilities, individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and individuals who have changed or may change careers, to pursue careers in early intervention, special education, and related services. These outreach activities must also encourage individuals to pursue careers as paraprofessionals. In developing, implementing, and maintaining a
(c) Provide information to individuals who have expressed interest in pursuing a career in early intervention, special education, or related services. To address this requirement, the Center must—
(1) Compile and regularly update information on ongoing and emerging areas of personnel need, as identified by SEAs, LEAs, lead agencies, and other relevant entities;
(2) Develop and maintain a comprehensive, up-to-date, searchable, and easily accessible database of accredited early intervention, special education, and related services personnel preparation programs available across the country. This database must reflect the full range of training opportunities, including both traditional and alternative programs; and
(3) Develop and maintain a comprehensive, up-to-date, searchable, and easily accessible database of information on available student financial assistance, including financial assistance provided by the Department, other Federal agencies, State agencies, and public and private sources to support training opportunities for individuals pursuing careers in early intervention, special education and related services.
(d) Maintain a Web site that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility and that links to the Web site operated by the Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC), which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. The Web site must contain information on early intervention, special education, and related services careers, including careers for paraprofessionals; current research on recruiting, developing, and retaining a diverse, qualified workforce; and other relevant resources on recruitment and retention.
(e) Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials on trends, emerging research, and compelling issues relating to the recruitment and retention of early intervention, special education, and related services personnel, and related topics, as requested by OSEP for specific audiences, including SEAs, LEAs, lead agencies, and IHEs, including community colleges. In consultation with the OSEP Project Officer and the advisory committee established in accordance with paragraph (b) in the
(a) Provide information to OSEP at least twice during the project period on the capacity of States to use their personnel data systems to disaggregate HQT data by student disability category.
(b) Establish and maintain an advisory committee to review the activities and outcomes of the Center and provide programmatic support and advice throughout the project period. At a minimum, the advisory committee must meet on an annual basis in Washington, DC, and consist of SEA, LEA, lead agency, IHE, and community college representatives, and a parent of an infant, toddler, or child with a disability. The Center must submit the names of proposed members of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after receipt of the award.
(c) Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-funded projects, including the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality, the Center for Improving Teacher Quality, the National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development, the National Outreach and Technical Assistance Center on Discretionary Awards for Minority Institutions, CONNECT: The Center to Mobilize Early Childhood Knowledge, the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, the Parent Information Centers, the Regional Resource Centers, and the Center on the Statewide Improvement of Teacher Preparation Programs, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. This collaboration could include the joint development of products, the coordination of TA services, and planning and implementing TA meetings and events.
(d) Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, OSEP communities of practice (
(e) Prior to developing any new product, whether paper or electronic, submit to the OSEP Project Officer and the Proposed Product Advisory Board at OSEP's TACC for approval, a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product.
(f) Coordinate with the National Dissemination Center for Individuals with Disabilities, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008, to develop an efficient and high-quality dissemination strategy that reaches broad audiences. The Center must report to the OSEP Project Officer the outcomes of these coordination efforts.
(g) Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the Center's services to OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Matrix (
(h) Conduct a summative evaluation of the Center in collaboration with the OSEP-funded Center to Improve Project Performance (CIPP) as described in the following paragraphs. This summative evaluation must examine the outcomes or impact of the Center's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities in improving the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel for children with disabilities.
The major tasks of CIPP would be to guide, coordinate, and oversee the summative evaluations conducted by selected Technical Assistance, Personnel Development, Parent Training and Information Center, and Technology projects that individually receive $500,000 or more funding from OSEP annually. The efforts of CIPP are expected to enhance individual project evaluations by providing expert and unbiased assistance in designing evaluations, conducting analyses, and interpreting data.
To fulfill the requirements of the summative evaluation to be conducted under the guidance of CIPP, the Center must—
(1) Hire or designate, with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, evaluation experience and knowledge of the Center to work with CIPP on the following tasks: (i) Planning for the Center's summative evaluation (e.g., selecting evaluation questions, developing a timeline for the evaluation, locating sources of relevant data, and refining the logic model used for the evaluation), (ii) developing the summative evaluation design and instrumentation (e.g., determining quantitative or qualitative data collection strategies, selecting respondent samples, and pilot testing instruments), (iii) coordinating the evaluation timeline with the implementation of the Center's
(2) Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate $30,000 of the annual budget request for this project to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section, implementing the Center's formative evaluation, and traveling to Washington, DC in the second year of the project period for the Center's review for continued funding.
(i) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through monthly phone conversations and e-mail communication.
In deciding whether to continue funding the Center for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—
(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved recruitment and retention of personnel for children with disabilities.
20 U.S.C. 1462 and 1481.
(b) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 304.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.325C.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the two-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. The page limit, however, does apply to the application narrative (Part III).
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a.
To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities competition, CFDA Number 84.325C, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for the National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities competition at
• Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You also can find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to
• To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document)
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
b.
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center,
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
Grantees may be asked to participate in assessing and providing information on these aspects of program quality.
If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of an Open Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (the Council) and is intended to notify the general public of the meeting. This notice also describes the functions of the Council. Notice of the Council's meetings is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and by the Council's charter.
Cathie Carothers, Director, Office of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by Section 7141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Committee is established within the Department of Education to advise the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian children or adults as participants or programs that may benefit Indian children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council submits to the Congress, not later than June 30 of each year, a report on the activities of the Council that includes
The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Council with a briefing on three new reports recently completed by the Department: The National Indian Education Study, Parts I and II, and The Status and Trends of Indian Education which will be released at the National Conference on Indian Education that starts on July 8, 2008 in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Council will also receive informational updates on State initiatives by selected State Indian Education Directors and general updates from the Department of Education. The meeting is being held as a pre-conference activity of the National Conference on Indian Education which is an activity of Executive Order 13336 on American Indian and Alaska Native Education.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Cathie Carothers at (202) 260-7485 no later than July 1, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Records are kept of all Council proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of Indian Education, United States Department of Education, Room 5C140, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open entry period for performance competition.
Pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007; Subtitle E; Section 655, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, on behalf of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Building Technologies Program, intends to accept entrants to the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Competition (L Prize
The entry period for the 60-watt incandescent and PAR 38 halogen replacement lamps is now open and will remain open until a qualified winner is announced.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505.
C. Eddie Christy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, MS E-06, Morgantown, WV 26505, (304) 285-4604, E-mail:
Detailed information regarding this competition is available at
The L Prize Competition is intended to encourage development and deployment of highly energy efficient solid-state lighting (SSL) products to replace several of the most common lighting products currently used in the United States, including 60-watt A19 incandescent and PAR 38 halogen lamps. To significantly impact the national market and lighting use, the SSL products must perform similarly to the lamps they are intended to replace in terms of color appearance, light output, light distribution, and lamp shape, size, form factor, appearance and operating environment. They must be reliable, available through normal market channels, and competitively priced.
Entries to each category will be evaluated against the respective performance criteria which are based upon the statutory requirements of the EISA. Full performance specification criteria and competition details can be found at
Subject to the availability of funding through appropriations, EISA provides for cash prizes for each prize category. Actual cash prizes are subject to the availability of appropriated funding from future appropriations and private funding contributions as authorized by the EISA. Funding for the cash prizes is not available during fiscal year 2008; however, due to the required duration of the evaluation process, the DOE does not anticipate declaring successful entrants prior to fiscal year 2009.
In addition to cash prizes, the L Prize authorization provides that the Secretary of Energy is to consult with the Administrator of General Services to develop federal purchase guidelines with the goal of conducting a Federal procurement of SSL products from the winner under the 60-watt incandescent and PAR 38 halogen categories.
Entrants must submit 2,000 commercially acceptable quality control units which meet the full criteria specified 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 dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company 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 dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff 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 dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Determination.
The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the state waters of Salem Sound in the towns of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead.
Ann Rodney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, COP, Boston, MA 02114-2023.
On May 16, 2008, EPA published a notice that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had petitioned the Regional Administrator, Environmental
The petition was filed pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217 and 100-4, for the purpose of declaring these waters a No Discharge Area (NDA).
This Notice of Determination is for the state waters of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead, collectively referred to as Salem Sound. The NDA includes:
The NDA boundary includes the municipal waters of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead and extends to the boundary between state and federal waters. This area includes Bakers Island, Crowninshield Island, Cat Island, Children's Island, Great and Little Misery Islands, and House Island.
The information submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts certifies that there are eight pumpout facilities located in this area. A list of the facilities, with phone numbers, locations, and hours of operation is appended at the end of this determination.
Based on the examination of the petition, its supporting documentation, and information from site visits conducted by EPA New England staff, EPA has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the area covered under this determination.
This determination is made pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217 and 100-4.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Listening Session.
EPA is announcing a listening session to be held on July 16, 2008, during the public comment period for the external review draft document entitled, “Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).” This listening session is a new step in EPA's revised process, announced on April 10, 2008, for development of human health assessments for inclusion on IRIS. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on draft IRIS health assessments to EPA and other interested parties during the public comment period and prior to the external peer review meeting. EPA welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will be provided to the Agency by the listening session participants. The comments will be considered by the Agency as it revises the draft assessment in response to the independent external peer review and public comments. All presentations will become part of the official and public record.
The EPA's draft assessment and peer review charge are available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's (NCEA) home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at
The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for carbon tetrachloride will be held on July 16, 2008, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. If you wish to make a presentation at the listening session, you should register by July 9, 2008, and indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the session, and indicate the length of your presentation. At the time of your registration, please indicate if you require audio-visual aid (e.g., lap top and slide projector). In general, each presentation should be no more than 30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests for presentations than the allotted time will allow, then the time limit for each presentation will be adjusted accordingly. Participants who have registered to attend may also register at the beginning of the listening session to make comments. The order of the presentations will follow the order of registration. A copy of the agenda for the listening session will be available at the meeting.
The public comment period for review of this draft assessment was announced previously in the
Listening session participants who wish to have their comments available to the external peer reviewers should also submit written comments during the public comment period using the detailed and established procedures included in the aforementioned FR notice (May 21, 2008). Comments submitted to the docket prior to the end of the public comment period will be submitted to the external peer reviewers and considered by EPA in the disposition of public comments. Comments received in the docket after the public comment period closes must still be submitted to the docket but will not be submitted to the external peer reviewers.
The listening session on the draft carbon tetrachloride assessment will be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard (North Building), 7th Floor, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. To attend the listening session, register by July 9, 2008, via e-mail at
A teleconference line will also be available for registered attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is 866-299-3188 and the access code is 7033478503, followed by the pound sign (#). The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 am, and you will be asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the call.
For information on the public listening sessions, please contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
This listening session is a new step in EPA's revised process, announced on April 10, 2008, for development of human health assessments for inclusion on IRIS. The new process is posted on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions menu at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing that a telephone conference will be held with the peer reviewers (who are reviewing the draft
The teleconference will be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, beginning at 12 Noon Eastern Time. Requests from members of the public who wish to make oral presentations during the teleconference will be accepted through Thursday, July 3, 2008.
Telephone conference call only. See the following
For general information on this teleconference, contact Ms. Thea Johnson at (703) 308-0050, or
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on July 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:
• June 12, 2008.
• Merger of First AgCredit, FCS and its subsidiaries with and into Capital Farm Credit, ACA.
• OE Quarterly Report.
* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).
• Update on OE Oversight Activities.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of Open Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on initiatives to expand access to banking services by underserved populations.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon.
The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.
This ComE-IN meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet at:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11:30 a.m., June 26, 2008.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th Street entrance between Constitution Avenue and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551
Open.
We ask that you notify us in advance if you plan to attend the open meeting and provide your name, date of birth, and social security number (SSN) or passport number. You may provide this information by calling (202) 452-2474 or you may register online. You may pre-register until close of business (June 25, 2008). You also will be asked to provide identifying information, including a photo ID, before being admitted to the Board meeting. The Public Affairs Office must approve the use of cameras; please call (202) 452-2955 for further information. If you need an accommodation for a disability, please contact Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. For the hearing impaired only, please use the Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) on 202-263-4869.
Providing the information requested is voluntary; however, failure to provide your name, date of birth, and social security number or passport number may result in denial of entry to the Federal Reserve Board. This information is solicited pursuant to Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act and will be used to facilitate a search of law enforcement databases to confirm that no threat is posed to Board employees or property. It may be disclosed to other persons to evaluate a potential threat. The information also may be provided to law enforcement agencies, courts and others, but only to the extent necessary to investigate or prosecute a violation of law.
1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Implementing the Basel II Standardized Approach in the United States.
2. This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. Computer discs (CDs) will then be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies can be ordered for $4 per disc by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through July 31, 2011, the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (“COPPA Rule”), which will expire on July 31, 2008. The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the PRA.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 24, 2008.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “FTC COPPA PRA Comment: FTC File No. P084511” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. If, however, the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.”
Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following the instructions on the web-based form at (
All comments should additionally be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395-6974 because U.S. Postal Mail is subject to lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions.
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at
Requests for additional information regarding this proceeding should be addressed to Mamie Kresses, (202) 326-2070, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Mail Drop NJ-3212, Washington, D.C. 20580.
On March 26, 2008, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the COPPA Rule, 16 CFR Part 312 (OMB Control Number 3084-0117). 73 FR 16015. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
(a)
The COPPA Rule contains certain statutorily-required notice requirements, which constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA:
(1) the Rule requires each website and online service directed to children,
(2) the Rule requires the operator to provide the parent with notice of the specific types of personal information being collected from the child, to give the parent the opportunity to forbid the operator at any time from collecting, using, or maintaining such information, and to provide reasonable means for the parent to review the information;
(3) the Rule requires operators to obtain “verifiable parental consent” prior to collecting, using, or disclosing children’s personal information;
(4) the Rule requires website and online service operators to establish
(5) the Rule requires operators to provide reasonable means for the parent to review the information.
The FTC staff retains its estimate that roughly 30 new web entrants each year will fall within the Rule’s coverage and that, on average, new entrants will spend approximately 60 hours crafting a privacy policy, designing mechanisms to provide the required online privacy notice and, where applicable, the direct notice to parents.
Website operators that have previously created or adjusted their sites to comply with the Rule will incur no further burden associated with the Rule, unless they opt to change their policies and information collection in ways that will further invoke the Rule’s provisions. Moreover, staff believes that existing COPPA-compliant operators who introduce additional sites beyond those they already have created will incur minimal, if any, incremental PRA burden. This is because such operators already have been through the start-up phase and can carry over the results of that to the new sites they create.
(b)
Operators can comply with the Rule by meeting the terms of industry self-regulatory guidelines that the Commission approves after notice and comment.
Accordingly, FTC staff estimates that total burden per year for disclosure requirements affecting new web entrants and reporting requirements for safe harbor applications would be approximately 2,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand.
General Services Administration.
Notice.
GSA reviewed its Privacy Act systems to ensure that they are relevant, necessary, accurate, up-to-date, covered by the appropriate legal or regulatory authority, and compliant with OMB M-07-16. This notice is an updated Privacy Act system of records notice.
Effective July 24, 2008.
Call or e-mail the GSA Privacy Act Officer: telephone 202-208-1317; e-mail
GSA Privacy Act Officer (CIB), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405.
GSA undertook and completed an agency-wide review of its Privacy Act systems of records. As a result of the review, GSA is publishing an updated Privacy Act system of records notice. The revised system notice clarifies the authorities and practices regarding the collection and maintenance of information, but does not change individuals' rights to access or amend their records in the system of records. The updated system notice also
Enterprise Level Identity Verification System (ELIVS).
ELIVS comprises a Web based application and data is maintained in a secure server facility at GSA Central Office, located at 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Additionally, some fingerprint data may be located in GSA facilities where staffed fingerprint collection stations (Live Scan system) have been established to handle the contractor Personal Identity Verification (PIV) process. Contact the System Manager for additional information.
Individuals who require routine access to agency facilities and information technology systems, including:
a. Federal employees.
b. Contractors.
c. Child care workers and other temporary workers with similar access requirements.
The system does not apply to occasional visitors or short-term guests, to whom GSA facilities may issue local Facility Access Cards (FAC).
The system contains information needed for issuing and maintaining HSPD-12 credentials and also access privilege information. Records may include:
• Employee/contractor/other worker full name
• Social Security Number (SSN)
• Date of birth
• Facial Image
• Fingerprints (within the Live Scan systems)
• Organization/office of assignment
• Company/agency name
• Telephone number
• ID card issuance and expiration dates
• ID card number
• Emergency responder designation
• Home address and work location
• Contract and supervisor information
5 U.S.C. 301, 40 U.S.C. 121, 40 U.S.C. 582, 40 U.S.C. 3101, 44 U.S.C. 3501, 44 U.S.C. 3506, 44 U.S.C. 3602, E.O. 9397, and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12).
The primary purposes of the system are:
To act as an authoritative source for GSA identities including employees, contractors, and other workers to verify that all persons requiring routine access to GSA facilities or using GSA information resources have sufficient background investigations and are permitted access, to track and manage HSPD-12 ID cards issued to persons who have routine access to GSA facilities and information systems, and to provide reports of identity data for administrative and staff offices to efficiently track and manage contractors.
System information may be accessed and used by:
a. GSA Personnel when needed for official business, including the Security Office, HSPD-12 Points of Contacts, and designated analysts and managers for official business; PIV card requesting officials and Human Resource Officers to track, verify, and update identity information of GSA personnel; and Regional Credential Officers (RCOs) to issue and track PIV ID cards;
b. To verify suitability of an employee or contractor before granting access to specific resources;
c. To disclose information to agency staff and administrative offices who may restructure the data for management purposes;
d. An authoritative source of identities for Active Directory and Lotus Notes and other GSA systems;
e. In any legal proceeding, where pertinent, to which GSA is a party before a court or administrative body;
f. To authorized officials engaged in investigating or settling a grievance, complaint, or appeal filed by an individual who is the subject of the record.
g. To a Federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal agency in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee; the issuance of a security clearance; the reporting of an investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant, license, or other benefit to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to a decision;
h. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the information is required for program evaluation purposes;
i. To a Member of Congress or staff on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record;
j. To an expert, consultant, or contractor of GSA in the performance of a Federal duty to which the information is relevant;
k. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management purposes;
l. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Agency suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Agency has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by GSA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with GSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Computer records are stored on a secure server and accessed over the web using encryption software. Paper records, when created, are kept in file folders and cabinets in secure rooms. The Live Scan systems are kept in secure locations with limited access to authorized personnel only.
Records are retrievable by a combination of first name and last name. Group records are retrieved by organizational code.
Computer records are protected by a password system. Paper records are stored in locked metal containers or in secured rooms when not in use. Information is released to authorized officials based on their need to know.
Records are disposed of as specified in the handbook, GSA Records Maintenance and Disposition System (CIO P 1820.1).
Program Manager, HSPD-12 Program Management Office, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 2208 Washington, DC 20405.
An individual can determine if this system contains a record pertaining to him/her by sending a request in writing, signed, to the System Manager at the above address. When requesting notification of or access to records covered by this notice, an individual should provide his/her full name, date of birth, region/office, and work location. An individual requesting notification of records in person must provide identity documents sufficient to satisfy the custodian of the records that the requester is entitled to access, such as a government-issued photo ID.
Rules for contesting the content of a record and appealing a decision are contained in 41 CFR 105-64.
The sources for information in the system are the individuals about whom the records are maintained, the supervisors of those individuals, existing GSA systems, sponsoring agency, former sponsoring agency, other Federal agencies, contract employer, former employer, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Assessing the Impact of the Patient Safety Improvement Corps (PSIC) Training Program.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by July 24, 2008.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQTs OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by e-mail at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by e-mail at
AHRQ proposes to assess the impact of the PSIC training program. This three-week program was designed and implemented by AHRQ and the Veteran's Administration's (VA) National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) to improve patient safety by training participants in various patient safety concepts, tools, information, and techniques. The PSIC program represents a new approach to training for AHRQ by focusing on disseminating patient safety information and building skill sets to ultimately foster a national network of individuals who support, promote, and speak a common language of patient safety. Participants have included representatives from State health departments, hospitals and health systems, Quality Improvement Organizations, and a very small number of other types of organizations. AHRQ will use an independent contractor to conduct the assessment of the PSIC training program. The goal of the assessment is to determine the extent to which the PSIC concepts, tools, information, and techniques have been used on the job by training participants and successfully disseminated within and beyond the participating organizations, local areas, regions, and states. AHRQ is assessing the PSIC program pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C. 299(b) and 42 U.S.C. 299a(a) to evaluate its strategies for improving health care quality.
The assessment involves two Web-based questionnaires to examine post-training activities and patient safety outcomes of the training from multiple perspectives. One questionnaire is directed to training participants while the other is directed to leaders of the organizations from which the training participants were selected. Questionnaires will focus on the following topics: (1) Post-PSIC activities (including how PSIC material has been utilized in their home organizations, types of patient safety activities conducted post-PSIC, and number of people trained in some or all aspects of PSIC since their attendance); (2) barriers to and facilitators of the use of PSIC in the workplace; and (3) perceived outcomes of PSIC participation (e.g., improved patient safety; improved patient safety processes, standards, or policies; improved investigative and analytical processes and selection and implementation of patient safety interventions; improved patient safety culture; improved communications).
All training participants and organizational leaders from participating organizations will be invited to respond to their corresponding Web-based questionnaire. Invitations will be sent via e-mail, using contact information previously collected by AHRQ and NCPS. Standard non response follow-up techniques, such as two reminder e-mails that include the link to the questionnaire, will be used. Individuals and organizations will be assured of the privacy of their responses.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. The training participant questionnaire is estimated to require 30 minutes to complete and the organizational leader questionnaire is estimated to require 15 minutes to complete, resulting in a total burden of 169 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $5,552.80.
The total cost to the government for this activity is estimated to be $127,442 to conduct the two one-time questionnaires and to analyze and present its results. This amount includes costs for developing the data collection tools ($50,976); collecting the data ($25,488); analyzing the data and reporting the findings ($44,605); and administrative support activities ($6,373).
In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research, quality improvement and information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by August 25, 2008.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Jonna Capezzuto,Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
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
All blood and blood components introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce are subject to section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262). Section 351(a) requires that manufacturers of biological products, which include blood and blood components intended for further manufacture into injectable products, have a license, issued upon a demonstration that the product is safe, pure and potent and that the manufacturing establishment meets all applicable standards, including those prescribed in the FDA regulations designed to ensure the continued safety, purity, and potency of the product. In addition, under section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264), by delegation from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, FDA may make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.
Section 351(j) of the PHS Act states that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act also applies to biological products. Blood and blood components for transfusion or for further manufacture into injectable products are drugs, as that term is defined in section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)). Because blood and blood components are drugs under the act, blood and plasma establishments must comply with the substantive provisions and related regulatory scheme of the FD&C Act. For example, under section 501 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)), drugs are deemed “adulterated” if the methods used in their manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) and related regulations.
The CGMP regulations (part 606) (21 CFR part 606)) and related regulations implement FDA's statutory authority to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of blood and blood components. The public health objective in testing human blood donors for evidence of infection due to communicable disease agents and in notifying donors is to prevent the transmission of communicable disease. For example, the “lookback” requirements are intended to help ensure the continued safety of the blood supply by providing necessary information to users of blood and blood components and appropriate notification of recipients of transfusion who are at increased risk for transmitting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
The information collection requirements in the CGMP, donor testing, donor notification, and “lookback” regulations provide FDA with the necessary information to perform its duty to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of blood and blood components. These requirements establish accountability and traceability in the processing and handling of blood and blood components and enable FDA to perform meaningful inspections. The recordkeeping requirements serve preventive and remedial purposes. The disclosure requirements identify the various blood and blood components and important properties of the product, demonstrate that the CGMP requirements have been met, and facilitate the tracing of a product back to its original source. The reporting requirements inform FDA of any deviations that occur and that may require immediate corrective action.
Under the reporting requirements, § 606.170(b), in brief, requires that facilities notify FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), as soon as possible after confirming a complication of blood collection or transfusion to be fatal. The collecting facility is to report donor fatalities, and the compatibility testing facility is to report recipient fatalities. The regulation also requires the reporting facility to submit a written report of the investigation within 7 days after the fatality. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, FDA received, on average, 100 of these reports.
Section 610.40(c)(1)(ii) (21 CFR 610.40(c)(1)(ii)), in brief, requires that each donation dedicated to a single identified recipient be labeled as required under § 606.121 and with a label entitled “INTENDED RECIPIENT INFORMATION LABEL” containing the name and identifying information of the recipient.
Section 610.40(g)(2) (21 CFR 610.40(g)(2)) requires an establishment to obtain written approval from FDA to ship human blood or blood components for further manufacturing use prior to completion of testing for evidence of infection due to certain communicable disease agents.
Section 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(A) (21 CFR 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(A)), in brief, requires an establishment to obtain written approval from FDA to use or ship human blood or blood components found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of certain communicable disease agent(s) or collected from a donor with a record of a reactive screening test. Furthermore, § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D) (21 CFR 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D)), in brief, requires an establishment to label certain reactive human blood and blood components with the appropriate screening test results, and, if they are intended for further manufacturing use into injectable products, include a statement on the label indicating the exempted use specifically approved by FDA. Finally, § 610.40(h)(2)(vi) (21 CFR 610.40(h)(2)(vi)) requires each donation of human blood or blood components, excluding Source Plasma, that tests reactive by a screening test for syphilis and is determined to be a biological false positive to be labeled with both test results.
Section 610.42(a) (21 CFR 610.42(a)) requires a warning statement “indicating that the product was manufactured from a donation found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of infection due to the identified communicable disease agent(s)” in the labeling for medical devices containing human blood or a blood component found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of infection due to a communicable disease agent(s) or syphilis.
In brief, §§ 610.46 and 610.47 (21 CFR 610.46 and 610.47) require blood collecting establishments to establish, maintain, and follow an appropriate system for performing HIV and HCV prospective “lookback” when: (1) A donor tests reactive for evidence of HIV or HCV infection or (2) the collecting establishment becomes aware of other reliable test results or information indicating evidence of HIV or HCV infection (“prospective lookback”) (see §§ 610.46(a)(1) and 610.47(a)(1)). The requirement for “an appropriate system” requires the collecting establishment to design standard operating procedures (SOPs) to identify and quarantine all blood and blood components previously collected from a donor who later tests reactive for evidence of HIV or HCV infection, or when the collecting establishment is made aware of other reliable test results or information indicating evidence of HIV or HCV infection. Within 3 calendar days of the donor testing reactive by an HIV or HCV screening test or the collecting establishment
Consignees also must establish, maintain, and follow an appropriate system for performing HIV and HCV “lookback” when notified by the collecting establishment that they have received blood and blood components previously collected from donors who later tested reactive for evidence of HIV or HCV infection, or when the collecting establishment is made aware of other reliable test results or information indicating evidence of HIV or HCV infection in a donor (§§ 610.46(b) and 610.47(b)). This provision for a system requires the consignee to establish SOPs for, among other things, notifying transfusion recipients of blood and blood components, or the recipient's physician of record or legal representative, when such action is indicated by the results of the supplemental (additional, more specific) tests or a reactive screening test if there is no available supplemental test that is approved for such use by FDA, or if under an investigational new drug application (IND) or an investigational device exemption (IDE), is exempted for such use by FDA. The consignee must make reasonable attempts to perform the notification within 12 weeks of receipt of the supplemental test result or receipt of a reactive screening test result when there is no available supplemental test that is approved for such use by FDA, or if under an IND or IDE, is exempted for such use by FDA (§§ 610.46(b)(3) and 610.47(b)(3)).
Section 630.6(a) (21 CFR 630.6(a)) requires an establishment to make reasonable attempts to notify any donor who has been deferred as required by § 610.41 (21 CFR 610.41), or who has been determined not to be eligible as a donor. Section 630.6(d)(1) requires an establishment to provide certain information to the referring physician of an autologous donor who is deferred based on the results of tests as described in § 610.41.
Under the recordkeeping requirements, § 606.100(b), in brief, requires that written SOPs be maintained for all steps to be followed in the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage, and distribution of blood and blood components used for transfusion and further manufacturing purposes. Section 606.100(c) requires the review of all records pertinent to the lot or unit of blood prior to release or distribution. Any unexplained discrepancy or the failure of a lot or unit of final product to meet any of its specifications must be thoroughly investigated, and the investigation, including conclusions and followup, must be recorded.
In brief, § 606.110(a) provides that the use of plateletpheresis and leukaphesis procedures to obtain a product for a specific recipient may be at variance with the additional standards for that specific product if, among other things, the physician certifies in writing that the donor's health permits plateletpheresis or leukapheresis. Section 606.110(b) requires establishments to request prior approval from CBER for plasmapheresis of donors who do not meet donor requirements. The information collection requirements for § 606.110(b) are approved under OMB control number 0910-0338 and, therefore, are not reflected in tables 1 and 2 of this document.
Section 606.151(e) requires that SOPs for compatibility testing include procedures to expedite transfusion in life-threatening emergencies; records of all such incidents must be maintained, including complete documentation justifying the emergency action, which must be signed by a physician.
So that each significant step in the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage, and distribution of each unit of blood and blood components can be clearly traced, § 606.160 requires that legible and indelible contemporaneous records of each such step be made and maintained for no less than 10 years. Section 606.160(b)(1)(viii)) requires records of the quarantine, notification, testing and disposition performed under the HIV and HCV “lookback” provisions. Furthermore, § 606.160(b)(1)(ix) requires a blood collection establishment to maintain records of notification of donors deferred or determined not to be eligible for donation, including appropriate followup. Section 606.160(b)(1)(xi) requires an establishment to maintain records of notification of the referring physician of a deferred autologous donor, including appropriate followup.
Section 606.165, in brief, requires that distribution and receipt records be maintained to facilitate recalls, if necessary.
Section 606.170(a) requires records to be maintained of any reports of complaints of adverse reactions arising as a result of blood collection or transfusion. Each such report must be thoroughly investigated, and a written report, including conclusions and followup, must be prepared and maintained. When an investigation concludes that the product caused the transfusion reaction, copies of all such written reports must be forwarded to and maintained by the manufacturer or collecting facility.
Section 610.40(g)(1) (21 CFR 610.40(g)(1)) requires an establishment to appropriately document a medical emergency for the release of human blood or blood components prior to completion of required testing.
In addition to the CGMP regulations in part 606, there are regulations in part 640 (21 CFR part 640) that require additional standards for certain blood and blood components as follows: Sections 640.3(a)(1), (a)(2), and (f); 640.4(a)(1) and (a)(2); 640.25(b)(4) and (c)(1); 640.27(b); 640.31(b); 640.33(b); 640.51(b); 640.53(b) and (c); 640.56(b) and (d); 640.61; 640.63(b)(3), (e)(1), and (e)(3); 640.65(b)(2); 640.66; 640.71(b)(1); 640.72; 640.73; and 640.76(a) and (b). The information collection requirements and estimated burdens for these regulations are included in the part 606 burden estimates, as described in tables 1 and 2 of this document.
Respondents to this collection of information are licensed and unlicensed blood establishments that collect blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, inspected by FDA, and other transfusion services inspected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Based on information received from CBER's database systems, there are approximately 81 licensed Source Plasma establishments with multiple locations and approximately 2,000 registered blood collection establishments, for an estimated total of 2,081 establishments. Of these establishments, approximately 696 perform plateletpheresis and leukopheresis. These establishments annually collect approximately 28 million units of Whole Blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, and are required to follow FDA “lookback” procedures. In addition, there are another 4,980 establishments that fall under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (formerly referred to as facilities approved for Medicare reimbursement) that transfuse blood and blood components.
The following reporting and recordkeeping estimates are based on information provided by industry, CMS,
FDA estimates that approximately 5 percent (12,000) of the 240,000 donations that are donated specifically for the use of an identified recipient would be tested under the dedicated donors' testing provisions in § 610.40(c)(1)(ii).
Under § 610.40(g)(2) and (h)(2)(ii)(A), the only product currently shipped prior to completion of testing for evidence of certain communicable disease agents is a licensed product, Source Leukocytes, used in the manufacture of interferon, which requires rapid preparation from blood. Shipments of Source Leukocytes are pre-approved under a biologics license application and each shipment does not have to be reported to the agency. Based on information from CBER's database system, FDA receives less than 1 application per year from manufacturers of Source Leukocytes. However, for calculation purposes, we are estimating 1 application annually.
Under § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D), FDA estimates that each manufacturer would ship an estimated 1 unit of human blood or blood components per month (12 per year) that would require 2 labels; one as reactive for the appropriate screening test under § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C), and the other stating the exempted use specifically approved by FDA under § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(D). According to CBER's database system, there are approximately 40 licensed manufacturers that ship known reactive human blood or blood components.
Based on information we received from industry, we estimate that approximately 18,000 donations: (1) Annually test reactive by a screening test for syphilis, (2) are determined to be biological false positives by additional testing, and (3) are labeled accordingly (§ 610.40(h)(2)(vi)).
Human blood or a blood component with a reactive screening test, as a component of a medical device, is an integral part of the medical device, e.g., a positive control for an in vitro diagnostic testing kit. It is usual and customary business practice for manufacturers to include on the container label a warning statement that identifies the communicable disease agent. In addition, on the rare occasion when a human blood or blood component with a reactive screening test is the only component available for a medical device that does not require a reactive component, then a warning statement must be affixed to the medical device. To account for this rare occasion under § 610.42(a), we estimate that the warning statement would be necessary no more than once a year.
FDA estimates that approximately 3,500 repeat donors will test reactive on a screening test for HIV. We also estimate that an average of three components was made from each donation. Under §§ 610.46(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 610.46(a)(3), this estimate results in 10,500 (3,500 x 3) notifications of the HIV screening test results to consignees by collecting establishments for the purpose of quarantining affected blood and blood components, and another 10,500 (3,500 x 3) notifications to consignees of subsequent test results. We estimate an average of 10 minutes per notification of consignees.
Moreover, we estimate that § 610.46(b)(3) will require 4,980 consignees to notify transfusion recipients, their legal representatives, or physicians of record an average of 0.35 times per year resulting in a total number of 1,755 (585 confirmed positive repeat donors x 3) notifications. Under § 610.46(b)(3), we also estimate 1 hour to accommodate the time to gather test results and records for each recipient and to accommodate multiple attempts to contact the recipient.
Furthermore, we estimate that approximately 7,800 repeat donors per year would test reactive for antibody to HCV. Under §§ 610.47(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 610.47(a)(3), collecting establishments would notify the consignee 2 times for each of the 23,400 (7,800 x 3 components) components prepared from these donations, once for quarantine purposes and again with additional HCV test results for a total of 46,800 notifications as an annual ongoing burden. Under § 610.47(b)(3), we estimate that approximately 4,980 consignees would notify approximately 2,050 recipients or their physicians of record annually. Finally, we estimate 1.0 hours to complete notification.
Industry estimates that approximately 13 percent of 10 million potential donors (1.3 million donors) who come to donate annually are determined not to be eligible for donation prior to collection because of failure to satisfy eligibility criteria. It is the usual and customary business practice of approximately 2,000 blood collecting establishments to notify onsite and to explain why the donor is determined not to be suitable for donating. Based on such available information, we estimate that two-thirds (1,333) of the 2,000 blood collecting establishments provided onsite additional information and counseling to a donor determined not to be eligible for donation as usual and customary business practice. Consequently, we estimate that only one-third, or 667, approximately, blood collecting establishments would need to provide, under § 630.6(a), additional information and onsite counseling to the estimated 430,000 (one-third of approximately 1.3 million) ineligible donors.
It is estimated that another 4.5 percent of 10 million potential donors (450,000 donors) are deferred annually based on test results. We estimate that currently approximately 95 percent of the establishments that collect 99 percent of the blood and blood components notify donors who have reactive test results for HIV, Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), HCV, Human T-Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV), and syphilis as usual and customary business practice. Consequently, 5 percent of the 2,081 establishments (104) collecting 1 percent (4,500) of the deferred donors (450,000) would notify donors under § 630.6(a).
As part of usual and customary business practice, collecting establishments notify an autologous donor's referring physician of reactive test results obtained during the donation process required under § 630.6(d)(1). However, we estimate that approximately 5 percent of the 2,000 blood collection establishments (100) may not notify the referring physicians of the estimated 2 percent of 150,000 autologous donors with the initial reactive test results (3,000) as their usual and customary business practice.
The recordkeeping chart reflects the estimate that approximately 95 percent of the recordkeepers, which collect 99 percent of the blood supply, have developed SOPs as part of their customary and usual business practice. Establishments may minimize burdens associated with CGMP and related regulations by using model standards developed by industries' accreditation organizations. These accreditation organizations represent almost all registered blood establishments.
Under § 606.160(b)(1)(ix), we estimate the total annual records based on the approximately 1.3 million donors determined not to be eligible to donate and each of the estimated 1.75 million (1.3 million + 450,000) donors deferred based on reactive test results for
FDA has concluded that the use of untested or incompletely tested but appropriately documented human blood or blood components in rare medical emergencies should not be prohibited. We estimate the recordkeeping under § 610.40(g)(1) to be minimal with one or fewer occurrences per year. The reporting of test results to the consignee in § 610.40(g) does not create a new burden for respondents because it is the usual and customary business practice or procedure to finish the testing and provide the results to the manufacturer responsible for labeling the blood products.
The hours per response and hours per record are based on estimates received from industry or FDA experience with similar recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 24, 2008.
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: 202-395-6974, or e-mailed to
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 412(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 350a(e)) provides that if the manufacturer of an infant formula has knowledge that reasonably supports the conclusion that an infant formula processed by that manufacturer has left its control and may not provide the nutrients required in section 412(i) of the act or is otherwise adulterated or misbranded, the manufacturer must promptly notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). If the Secretary determines that the infant formula presents a risk to human health, the manufacturer must immediately take all actions necessary to recall shipments of such infant formula from all wholesale and retail establishments, consistent with recall regulations and guidelines issued by the Secretary. Section 412(f)(2) of the act states that the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe the scope and extent of recalls
Section 107.230 requires each recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements: (1) Evaluate the hazard to human health, (2) devise a written recall strategy, (3) promptly notify each affected direct account (customer) about the recall, and (4) furnish the appropriate FDA district office with copies of these documents. If the recalled formula presents a risk to human health, the recalling firm must also request that each establishment that sells the recalled formula post (at point of purchase) a notice of the recall and provide FDA with a copy of the notice. Section 107.240 requires the recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements: (1) Notify the appropriate FDA district office of the recall by telephone within 24 hours, (2) submit a written report to that office within 14 days, and (3) submit a written status report at least every 14 days until the recall is terminated. Before terminating a recall, the recalling firm is required to submit a recommendation for termination of the recall to the appropriate FDA district office and wait for written FDA concurrence (§ 107.250). Where the recall strategy or implementation is determined to be deficient, FDA may require the firm to change the extent of the recall, carry out additional effectiveness checks, and issue additional notifications (§ 107.260). In addition, to facilitate location of the product being recalled, the recalling firm is required to maintain distribution records for at least 1 year after the expiration of the shelf life of the infant formula (§ 107.280).
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to monitor the effectiveness of infant formula recalls in order to protect babies from infant formula that may be unsafe because of contamination or nutritional inadequacy or otherwise adulterated or misbranded. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations to help ensure that such products are quickly and efficiently removed from the market.
In the
Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities. No burden has been estimated for the recordkeeping requirement in § 107.280 because these records are maintained as a usual and customary part of normal business activities. Manufacturers keep infant formula distribution records for the prescribed period as a matter of routine business practice.
The reporting burden estimate is based on agency records, which show that there are five manufacturers of infant formula and that there have been, on average, two infant formula recalls per year for the past 3 years.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804;
Studies by the inventors have shown that injected radioligand failed to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) of rats; therefore, these compounds could serve as radiotracers for assessing and locating certain carcinomas that contain high
Available for licensing are compositions and methods of locating delta- and/or mu-opioid receptors located in peripheral cancers, such as in lung, breast, and/or colorectal cancer, using opiate radioligands.
PET imaging is steadily becoming a technique of choice in oncology so many of these patients will likely undergo scans several times during their treatment to assess the stage of their disease. This is supported by rising sales of FDG, which are expected to reach $933 million by 2012.
Available for licensing and commercial development are nucleic acids, polypeptides and antibodies specific for this novel isoform, as well as methods of screening for therapeutic agents and predicting susceptibility to schizophrenia.
More than 2,000,000 Americans have schizophrenia and it accounts for 2.5% of U.S. health care costs and 75% of expenditures for long-term mental health.
PCT Application No. PCT/US2008/057913 filed 21 Mar 2008 (HHS Reference No. E-245-2006/0-PCT-02).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
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. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. All visitors should be prepared to have their personal belongings inspected and to go through metal detection inspection. You are strongly encouraged to take public transportation to the NIH campus as there are very few visitor parking spaces available. If you must drive, short-term metered parking may be available near the Natcher Conference Center in Lot B. Natcher is a 5-minute walk from the Medical Center Station on the Red Line of the Metro.
A registration link and information about the about the IACC meeting will be available on the IACC Web site:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before August 25, 2008.
Send your comments on the IC to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is a tripartite agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States to enhance, restore, and protect habitat to benefit waterfowl and other wetlands-associated wildlife. Because the NAWMP did not include a mechanism to provide for broadly based and sustained financial support for wetland conservation activities, Congress passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act in 1989. The NAWCA promotes, through partnerships between the private and public sectors, long-term conservation of North American wetland ecosystems and the waterfowl and other migratory birds, fish, and wildlife that depend upon such habitat.
In addition to providing for a continuing and stable funding base, NAWCA establishes an administrative body, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. It is made up of a State representative from each of the four flyways, three representatives from nonprofit wetlands conservation organizations, the Secretary of the Board of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Council recommends funding of select wetlands conservation project proposals to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.
There is a Standard and a Small Grants Program. Both are competitive grants programs and require that grant requests be matched by partner contributions at no less than a 1-to-1 ratio. Funds from U.S. Federal sources may contribute to a project, but are not eligible as match.
The Standard Grants Program supports projects in Canada, the United States, and Mexico that involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats. In Mexico, partners may also conduct projects involving technical training, environmental education and outreach, organizational infrastructure development, and sustainable-use studies.
The Small Grants Program operates only in the United States. It supports the same type of projects and adheres to the same selection criteria and administrative guidelines as the U.S. Standard Grants Program. However, project activities are usually smaller in scope and involve fewer project dollars. Grant requests may not exceed $75,000, and funding priority is given to grantees or partners new to the NAWCA Grants Program.
We publish notices of funding availability on the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov) as well as in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. To compete for grant funds, partnerships submit applications that describe in substantial detail project locations, project resources, future benefits, and other characteristics that meet the standards established by the Council and the requirements of NAWCA. Materials that describe the program and assist applicants in formulating project proposals for Council consideration are available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA. Persons who do not have access to the Internet may obtain instructional materials by mail. We have not made any major changes in the scope and general nature of the instructions since the OMB first approved the information collection in 1999.
We invite comments concerning this IC on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include and/or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before August 25, 2008.
Send your comments on the IC to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
The NMBCA establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The purposes of NMBCA are to:
(1) Perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical migratory birds;
(2) Assist in the conservation of these birds by supporting conservation initiatives in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean; and
(3) Provide financial resources and foster international cooperation for those initiatives.
Principal conservation actions supported by NMBCA are:
(1) Protection and management of neotropical migratory bird populations.
(2) Maintenance, management, protection, and restoration of neotropical migratory bird habitat.
(3) Research and monitoring.
(4) Law enforcement.
(5) Community outreach and education.
We publish notices of funding availability on the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov) as well as in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (http://cfda.gov). To compete for grant funds, partnerships submit applications that describe in substantial detail project locations, project resources, future benefits, and other characteristics that meet the standards established by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the requirements of NMBCA.
Materials that describe the program and assist applicants in formulating project proposals for consideration are available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat. Persons who do not have access to the Internet may obtain instructional materials by mail. We have not made any major changes in the scope and general nature of the instructions since the OMB first approved the information collection in 2002.
We invite comments concerning this IC on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include and/or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before August 25, 2008.
Send your comments on the IC to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
Horseshoe crabs are among the world's oldest creatures. People have used this evolutionary survivor for centuries. Horseshoe crabs play an important role in the ecology of the coastal ecosystem, and, over time, have provided opportunities for commercial, recreational, medical, scientific, and educational uses.
In 1998, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), a management organization with representatives from each State on the Atlantic Coast, developed a horseshoe crab management plan. The ASMFC plan and its subsequent addenda established mandatory State-by-State harvest quotas, and created the 1,500 square mile Carl N. Shuster, Jr. Horseshoe Crab Sanctuary off the mouth of Delaware Bay. Fishermen use active management and innovative techniques to conserve bait that have successfully reduced commercial horseshoe crab landings in recent years. Conch and eel fishermen have been using bait bags in their traps so they can use a portion of one crab per trap, compared to using a whole crab in each trap. The bait bags have reduced the demand for bait by 50 to 75 percent.
Although restrictive measures have been taken in recent years, populations are not showing immediate increases. Because horseshoe crabs do not breed until they reach 9 years or older, it may take some time before the population measurably increases. A Horseshoe Crab Cooperative Tagging Program was established to monitor this species. Cooperating Federal and State agencies, universities, and biomedical companies tag and release horseshoe crabs. Agencies that tag and release the crabs complete the Horseshoe Crab Tagging Release Form (FWS Form 3-2311) and provide the Service with:
(1) Organization name.
(2) Contact person name.
(3) Tag number.
(4) Sex of crab.
(5) Prosomal width.
(6) Capture site, latitude, longitude, waterbody, State, and date.
Through public participants who recover tagged crabs, we collect the following information using FWS Form 3-2310 (Horseshoe Crab Recapture Report):
(1) Tag number.
(2) Whether or not tag was removed.
(3) Whether or not the tag was circular or square.
(4) Condition of crab.
(5) Date captured/found.
(6) Crab fate.
(7) Finder type.
(8) Capture method.
(9) Capture location.
(10) Reporter information.
(11) Comments.
If the public participant who reports the tagged crab requests information, we send data pertaining to the tagging program, and tag and release information on the horseshoe crab he/she found or captured. The information
*Average time required per response is dependent on the number of tags applied by an agency in 1 year. Agencies tag between 25 and 9,000 horseshoe crabs annually, taking between 2 to 5 minutes per crab to tag. Each agency determines the number of tags it will apply.
We invite comments concerning this IC on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include and/or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability: Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment; request for comment; correction.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recently published a notice in error requesting comments on a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA) that are not yet available for comment. We will republish a notice and request for comment when these documents become available.
Toni Griffin,
On June 16, 2008, we published a
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by July 24, 2008.
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 within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with
The applicant requests a permit to acquire from Coriell Institute, Camden, NJ, in interstate commerce skin fibroblast cell cultures from a male Bornean orangutan (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from the following species: Mouse lemur (
The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered marine mammals. The application was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to photograph Southern sea otters (
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by July 24, 2008.
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 within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to export one male and one female captive-born Snow leopard (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central California Resource Advisory Council Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Subcommittee will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held Saturday, July 12, 2008, at Pea Soup Andersen's Restaurant, Santa Nella, California, from 10 a.m. to noon. Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. The subcommittee will conduct organizational business and discuss OHV issues for the subcommittee to address.
BLM Folsom Field Office Manager Bill Haigh or BLM Central California Public Affairs Officer David Christy, both at (916) 985-4474.
The twelve-member Central California RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues associated with public land management in the Central California. The RAC approved formation of an OHV Subcommittee in April 2007. The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as indicated above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order extends the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 3708, as modified by Public Land Order No. 6709, and partially revoked by Public Land Order No. 7682, for an additional 20-year period. The extension is necessary to continue protection of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Gilmore Satellite Tracking Station, also known as the Fairbanks Command and Data Acquisition Station, located near Fairbanks, Alaska.
Terrie D. Evarts, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504, 907-271-5630.
Public Land Order No. 7682 partially revoked 63 acres and the acreage in this extension order reflects that revocation. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on February 14, 2029, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:
Public Land Order No. 3708 (30 FR 8753 (1965)), as modified by Public Land Order No. 6709 (54 FR 6919 (1989)), and partially revoked by Public Land Order No. 7682 (72 FR 71940 (2007)), which withdrew approximately 8,437 acres of public lands from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until February 14, 2029.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment and scoping for transferring jurisdiction of a portion of Fort Dupont Park to the District of Columbia for recreational development and uses and possible amendment of the 2004 Final Management Plan for Fort Circle Parks.
In accordance with § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
This also serves as an announcement of a public scoping comment period to run until July 24, 2008. Comments submitted to the Park or through Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) during the public scoping period and at public meetings for this EA will be considered as part of the planning process for the current proposed action. Comments submitted at the public meeting held May 12, 2008, will be considered as part of the planning process for the current proposed action and do not need to be resubmitted.
There is the possibility that the NPS might proceed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in which case written comments submitted now on the scope of the alternatives and impacts will continue to be considered.
NPS is soliciting public input for the subject Proposed Action until July 24, 2008.
Comments may be submitted through the Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site at
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Gayle Hazelwood, Superintendent, National Capital Parks-East, RE: Fort Dupont Park Land Transfer Proposal, at 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE., Washington, DC 20020, by telephone at (202) 690-5127, or by e-mail at
The 376-acre Fort Dupont Park is one of the Civil War Defenses of Washington and is one of the Fort Circle Parks managed by the NPS. In 2004, the NPS completed the Final Management Plan for Fort Circle Parks and an action to transfer these lands to the District will likely result in amendment of that plan. The transfer is to facilitate the development of new recreational facilities and programs on the subject property by the District, including a proposal to create a baseball academy and another to expand an existing indoor ice skating arena. The District's proposal would involve the help of private-sector partners.
The current Proposed Action is to transfer approximately 14 acres of NPS property situated on the north side of Fort Dupont Park along Ely Place in Southeast Washington, DC, to the District. This land is not in an area associated with the Civil War Defense of Washington, and does not contain earthworks or other historic or archeological resources. Once transferred, this property will no longer be part of the Park and no longer be managed or administered by the NPS. This transfer is part of an effort by the District to expand public facilities and recreational opportunities for area youth the NPS supports. The new recreational facilities and programs would be developed and operated by the District and its partners.
Information and comments gathered during scoping and public meetings will be used to identify the range of issues and potential impacts of this proposed action. It may also be used for other planning and decision-making.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA. The human remains were removed from Yachats, Lincoln County, OR.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound professional staff and a consultant in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; and Coquille Tribe of Oregon.
At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from the vicinity of Yachats, Lincoln County, OR, by Dr. L. E. Hibbard. Dr. Hibbard gave the human remains to Stanley G. Jewett. Mr. Jewett donated the human remains to the Slater Museum in 1955. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The individual is most likely of Native American ancestry as indicated by morphological features. Writing on the skull indicates that the human remains were removed from the vicinity of “Yahats,” which is reasonably believed to be a misspelling of Yachats. The geographical location where the human remains were recovered is consistent with the historically documented territory of the tribes now represented by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon. Members of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon and Coquille Tribe of Oregon were moved to the Yachats area where they lived from 1859-1875. Absent additional information about the burial period, officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History reasonably believe that the human remains are most likely affiliated with the Alsea Tribe who had villages in the vicinity of Yachats, which had inhabited the area prior to the arrival of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon and Coquille Tribe of Oregon, and continued to inhabit the area afterwards. The Alsea Tribe from the Yachats area are now members of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon. Furthermore, based on information provided during consultation with tribal representatives, there is a reasonable belief that the human remains share a common ancestry with members of tribes now represented by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon.
Officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Peter Wimberger, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416, telephone (253) 879-2784, before July 24, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Slater Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; and Coquille Tribe of Oregon that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession and control of the University of Hawai`i at Hilo, Department of Anthropology, Hilo, HI. The human remains were removed from Hawai`i Island, HI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Hawai`i at Hilo professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hawai`i Island Burial council, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai`i Nei, and Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
In the late 1970s or early 1980s, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an unknown shoreline location near the old Kona Airport in the North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, HI. An unknown student delivered the human remains to faculty in the anthropology department at that time. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains are heavily weathered and come from an area where shoreline erosion of Native Hawaiian human remains is well documented. Property ownership in the area includes both State land and private land and it is unclear where the human remains originated. Based on the lack of definitive information of removal and location, the University of Hawai`i at Hilo has proceeded as the responsible entity.
Officials of the University of Hawai`i at Hilo have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native Hawaiian ancestry. Officials of the University of Hawai`i at Hilo also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native Hawaiian human remains and Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai`i Nei and Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Representatives of any other Native Hawaiian Organization or Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Peter R. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Social Sciences Division, University of Hawai`i at Hilo, 200 West Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720-4091, telephone (808) 974-7465, before July 24, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains jointly to the Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai`i Nei and Office of Hawaiian Affairs may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The University of Hawai`i at Hilo is responsible for notifying the Hawai`i Island Burial council, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai`i Nei, and Office of Hawaiian Affairs that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) final determination (ID) finding no violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 (“the `858 patent) and U.S. Patent No. D517,789 (“the `789 patent”).
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 May 11, 2006, based on a complaint, as amended, filed by Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”) of Niwot, Colorado. 71 FR 27514 (2006). The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 foam footwear, by reason of infringement of claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858; U.S. Patent No. D517,789; and the Crocs trade dress (the image and overall appearance of Crocs-brand footwear). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complaint requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders. The complaint identifies 11 respondents that include: (1) Collective Licensing International, LLC (“Collective”) of Englewood, Colorado; (2) Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. (“Double Diamond”) of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (3) Effervescent Inc. (“Effervescent”) of Fitchburg, Massachusetts; (4) Gen-X Sports, Inc. (“Gen-X Sports”) of Toronto, Ontario; (5) Holey Shoes Holding Ltd. (“Holey Shoes”) of Vancouver, British Columbia; (6) Australia Unlimited, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; (7) Cheng's Enterprises Inc. of Carlstadt, New Jersey; (8) D. Myers & Sons, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland; (9) Inter-Pacific Trading Corp. of Los Angeles, California; (10) Pali Hawaii of Honolulu, Hawaii; and (11) Shaka Shoes of Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii. The Commission terminated the investigation as to the trade dress allegation on September 11, 2006. A
On April 11, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents. On April 24, 2008, the Commission issued a notice extending the deadline for determining whether to review the final ID by 15 days to June 11, 2008. On June 11, 2008, the Commission issued a notice extending the deadline for determining whether to review the final ID by 7 days to June 18, 2008.
Upon considering the parties' filings, the Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically, with respect to the `789 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's findings concerning non-infringement by the respondents' products and lack of satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement by Crocs' footwear. The Commission has also determined to review the ALJ's finding of invalidity with respect to the `858 patent. The Commission does not request any further written submissions at this time.
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 sections 210.42-45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42-45.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on June 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1311
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The consent decree and associated appendices may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, 2100 Jamieson Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. During the public comment period, the consent decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that on June 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1311
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The consent decree and associated appendices may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, 2100 Jamieson Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. During the public comment period, the consent decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that on June 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1311
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The consent decree and associated appendices may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, 2100 Jamieson Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. During the public comment period, the consent decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that on June 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1311
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The consent decree and associated appendices may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, 2100 Jamieson Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. During the public comment period, the consent decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
60-day notice of information collection under review: Extension of a currently approved collection: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey, and Annual Probation Survey (Short Form).
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) will be
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 Lauren E. Glaze, Statistician (202) 305-9628, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St., NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a) As of January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, the number of adult parolees under their jurisdiction;
(b) The number of adults entering parole during 2008 through discretionary release from prison, mandatory release from prison, a term of supervised release, or reinstatement of parole;
(c) The number of adults released from parole during 2008 through completion, incarceration, treatment, absconder status, transfer to another parole jurisdiction, or death;
(d) Whether the number of adult parolees reported as of December 31, 2008 represents individuals or cases;
(e) Whether adult parolees supervised out of State have been included in the total number of parolees on December 31, 2008, and the number of adult parolees supervised out of State;
(f) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult parolees under their jurisdiction with a sentence of more than one year, or a year or less;
(g) As of December 31, 2008, the number of male and female adult parolees under their jurisdiction;
(h) As of December 31, 2008, the number of white (not of Hispanic origin), black or African American (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races, or the number of adult parolees for which no information was available;
(i) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult parolees who had as their most serious offense a violent, property, drug, public-order, or other offense;
(j) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult parolees under their jurisdiction who were active, only have financial conditions remaining, inactive, absconders, or supervised out of state;
(k) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult parolees under their jurisdiction who were supervised following a discretionary release, a mandatory release, a term of supervised release, a special conditional release, or other type of release from prison;
(l) Whether the parole authority supervised any adult parolees who were also on probation supervision, held in local jails, prisons, community-based correctional facilities, or an ICE holding facility, and the number of adult parolees held in each on December 31, 2008;
(m) Whether the parole authority uses GPS monitoring systems to track the location of adult parolees, and the number of adult parolees tracked with GPS on December 31, 2008;
(n) Whether the parole authority collects data on the number of adult paroleess in a treatment program, and the number of adult parolees in treatment programs by type of program;
(o) Whether the parole authority collects data on the number of serious assaults or deaths of parole officers while in the line of duty, and the number of serious assaults or deaths of officers during 2008;
For the CJ-8 form, 344 reporters (one from each State, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and 292 from local authorities) responsible for keeping records on probations will be asked to provide information for the following categories:
(a) As of January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers under their jurisdiction;
(b) The number of adults entering probation during 2008 with and without a sentence to incarceration;
(c) The number of adults discharged from probation during 2008 through completion, incarceration, treatment, absconder status, a detainer or warrant, transfer to another parole jurisdiction, and death;
(d) Whether the number of adult probationers reported as of December 31, 2008 represents individuals or cases;
(e) As of December 31, 2008, the number of male and female adult probationers under their jurisdiction;
(f) As of December 31, 2008, the number of white (not of Hispanic origin), black or African American (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races, or the number of adult probationers for which no information was available;
(g) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers under their jurisdiction who were sentenced for a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense type;
(h) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers who had as their most serious offense domestic violence, other violent offense, property offense, drug law violation, driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or other traffic offense;
(i) Whether adult probationers supervised out of State have been included in the total number of probationers on December 31, 2008, and the number of adult probationers supervised out of State;
(j) Whether the probation authority collects data on the number of adult probationers who had previously served a sentence to prison for the same offense for which they are on probation;
(k) Whether the probation authority supervised adult probationers who were also on parole supervision, any probationers held in local jails, prisons, community-based correctional facilities, or an ICE holding facility, and the number of adult probationers held in each on December 31, 2005;
(l) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers under their jurisdiction who had entered probation with a direct sentence to probation, a split sentence to probation, a suspended sentence to incarceration, or a suspended imposition of sentence;
(m) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers under their jurisdiction who were active, in a residential or other treatment program, only had financial conditions remaining, inactive, absconders, those on warrant status, or supervised out of state;
(n) Whether the probation authority collects data on the number of adult probationers required to pay fines/restitution, and the number of adult probationers required to pay fines/restitution by type;
(o) Whether the probation authority collects data on the number of adult probationers in a treatment program, and the number of adult probationers in treatment programs by type of program;
(p) Whether the probation authority collects data on the number of serious assaults or deaths of probation officers while in the line of duty, and the number of serious assaults or deaths of officers during 2008;
For the CJ-8A form, 120 reporters (from local authorities) responsible for keeping records on probationers will be asked to provide information for the following categories:
(a) As of January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers under their jurisdiction;
(b) The number of adults entering probation and discharged from probation during 2008;
(c) Whether the number of adult probationers reported as of December 31, 2008 represents individuals or cases;
(d) As of December 31, 2008, the number of male and female adult probationers under their jurisdiction;
(e) As of December 31, 2008, the number of adult probationers under their jurisdiction who were sentenced for a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense type. The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses this information in published reports and for the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, practitioners, researchers, students, the media, and others interested in criminal justice statistics.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required, contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
10 a.m., Wednesday, July 9, 2008.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of Labor v.
Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the
This proceeding concerns a Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing submitted by the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which was submitted in response to a February 8, 2008 Notice of Hearing and Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene on a Combined License for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 (73 FR 7,611), and an April 11, 2008 Notice of Extension of Time for Petition for Leave To Intervene on a Combined License Application for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 (73 FR 19,904). The Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing challenges the application filed by Tennessee Valley Authority pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 for a combined license for Bellefonte Units 3
The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
Dr. William W. Sager, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of June 23, 30, July 7, 14, 21, 28, 2008.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2008.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 28, 2008.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Friday, July 11, 2008, in the Multipurpose Room, Room L-006, at the Commission's main offices, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will be Webcast on the Commission's Web site at
The agenda for the meeting includes discussion and deliberation of draft recommendations for the Committee's final report to the Commission. The Committee also may discuss written statements received and other matters of concern.
Written statements should be received on or before July 3, 2008.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper statements in triplicate to Florence Harmon, Acting Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
James L. Kroeker, Deputy Chief Accountant, or Shelly C. Luisi, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6561.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, § 10(a), James L. Kroeker, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has approved publication of this notice.
On April 25, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq initial and continued listing standards require a Nasdaq-listed company to meet and maintain, among other things, certain minimum number of round lot holders to demonstrate the security's liquidity. Nasdaq proposes to generally eliminate the requirement of round lot holders and replace it with different requirements, and to adopt new definitions with respect to these proposed changes.
The current minimum requirement for continued listing under the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Global Market is 400 round lot shareholders for common stock and equivalent
The current minimum requirement for initial listing under the Nasdaq Global Select Market is (1) a minimum of 550 beneficial shareholders and average monthly trading volume over the previous 12 months of at least 1,100,000 shares per month; (2) a minimum of 2,200 beneficial shareholders; or (3) a minimum of 450 beneficial round lot shareholders.
The current minimum requirement for continued listing for domestic and Canadian securities under the Nasdaq Capital Market is 300 round lot holders for common stock and 100 round lot holders for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock.
The current minimum requirement for continued listing for non-Canadian foreign securities and American Depositary Receipts under the Nasdaq Capital Market is 300 round lot holders for common stock and 100 round lot holders for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock.
Nasdaq also proposes to add a new definition of “public holders” to include beneficial holders and holders of record and exclude any holder who is, either directly or indirectly, an executive officer, director, or the beneficial holder of more than 10% of the total shares outstanding.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
The development and enforcement of adequate standards governing the initial and continued listing of securities on an exchange is an activity of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public. Listing standards, among other things, serve as a means for an exchange to screen issuers and to provide listed status only to bona fide companies that have or, in the case of an IPO, will have sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly markets. Adequate standards are especially important given the expectations of investors regarding exchange trading and the imprimatur of listing on a particular market. Once a security has been approved for initial listing, maintenance criteria allow an exchange to monitor the status and trading characteristics of that issue to ensure that it continues to meet the exchange's standards for market depth and liquidity so that fair and orderly markets can be maintained.
Nasdaq proposes to change the continued listing standards of the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Global Market shareholder requirements from 400 round lot shareholders to 400 total shareholders, for common stock and equivalent, and from 100 round lot shareholders to 100 public shareholders, for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock. The Commission believes that the proposal would continue to ensure that securities listed on Nasdaq Global Select and Global Markets would have sufficient liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets. The Commission notes that other listing markets utilize the concept of total shareholders and public shareholders. For example, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) requires, among other things, 400 total stockholders (record holders and beneficial holders) for continued listing of capital or common stock on NYSE.
Nasdaq proposes to change the initial listing standards of the Nasdaq Global Select Market shareholder requirements from: (1) Minimum of 550 beneficial shareholders and average monthly trading volume over the previous 12 months of at least 1,100,000 shares per month; (2) minimum of 2,200 beneficial shareholders; or (3) minimum of 450 beneficial round lot shareholders, to: (1) Minimum of 550 “total” shareholders and average monthly trading volume over the previous 12 months of at least 1,100,000 shares per month; (2) minimum of 2,200 “total” shareholders; or (3) minimum of 450 “round lot” shareholders.
The Commission believes that the proposal would ensure that securities to be listed on Nasdaq Global Select Market would have sufficient liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets. The Commission notes that other listing markets utilize the concept of total shareholders and “round lot” shareholders and the changes are similar to certain NYSE requirements
Nasdaq proposes to change the minimum requirement for continued listing for domestic and Canadian securities under the Nasdaq Capital Market from 300 round lot holders for common stock and 100 round lot holders for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock, to 300 “public” holders for common stock and 100 “public” holders for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock. In addition, Nasdaq proposes to change the minimum requirement for continued listing for non-Canadian foreign securities and American Depositary Receipts under the Nasdaq Capital Market from 300 round lot holders for common stock and 100 round lot holders for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock to 300 “public” holders for common stock and 100 “public” holders for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock.
The Commission finds the proposed change to the Nasdaq Capital Market common stock shareholder requirement is substantially similar to the Amex continued listing standards. Amex continued listing standards require, among other things, 300 public shareholders for continued listing.
The Commission also finds that the proposed change to the Nasdaq Capital Market preferred stock shareholder requirement is substantially similar to the Nasdaq Global Market preferred stock continued listing standards. Nasdaq Global Market continued listing standards require, among other things, a minimum of 100 round lot shareholders for preferred stock continued listing.
In connection with the proposed changes above, Nasdaq also proposes to add a new definition of “public holders” to include beneficial holders and holders of record and exclude any holder who is, either directly or indirectly, an executive officer, director, or the beneficial holder of more than 10% of the total shares outstanding. In addition, Nasdaq proposes to add a new definition of “total holders” to include beneficial holders and holders of record. Finally, Nasdaq proposes to amend the definition of “round lot holder” to clarify that beneficial holders would be considered in addition to holders of record. As noted earlier, these
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Issuance of Record of Decision.
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative identified in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Rutherford-Williamson-Davidson Power Supply Improvement Project.
In implementing Alternative 2, TVA has decided to construct and operate the new 500-kV Rutherford Substation, the 27-mile 500-kV transmission line between TVAs 500-kV Maury Substation and the new Rutherford Substation, the new 9-mile 161-kV transmission line between the new Rutherford Substation and Middle Tennessee Electric Membership Corporations (MTEMC) Almaville Substation, and the new 15-mile 161-kV transmission line between the new Rutherford Substation and MTEMCs Christiana Substation.
Anita E. Masters, Senior NEPA Specialist, Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, LP 5U, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402; telephone (423) 751-8697 or e-mail
TVA owns and operates a system of transmission lines that move electricity throughout the TVA service area, which comprises most of Tennessee and portions of six adjacent states, and to adjacent utilities. The electrical load growth in Rutherford, Williamson, and Maury Counties, Tennessee, will exceed the capacity of the three 500-kV substations and several of the 161-kV transmission lines serving the area by 2010. Unless action is taken to address this problem, TVAs ability to continue to provide reliable electric service will be degraded and disrupted more frequently and for longer periods. Therefore, TVA needs to increase transmission capacity in this area.
TVA published a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS in the
TVA uses a detailed, comprehensive siting process when it plans its transmission line projects. This is an iterative process that takes into account important environmental and cultural resource features that become constraints on locating proposed lines. Concerns of potentially affected landowners are also actively addressed during this process to reduce or avoid landowner impacts. Broad study corridors are initially defined and potential line routes are subsequently located within the study corridors. Because transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs) are much narrower than the study corridors, important features that are associated with specific corridors can often be avoided when final line routes are selected. Potential environmental impacts are considered and addressed throughout this siting process with the objective of formulating alternative line routes, including a preferred route, that meet the purpose and need for the proposed action while avoiding or reducing potential impacts. The identified preferred route is then subjected to additional study and analyses. TVA uses a similar process in identifying substation sites.
TVA initially identified four solutions (possible alternatives) to meet the project need.
Further evaluation of these four potential solutions concluded that only the first would be able to meet the project need. The other two construction solutions had higher overall costs, engineering problems, and problems meeting the 2010 in-service date because of the limited times when the existing transmission lines could be taken out of service for upgrading. Although TVA has recently committed to achieving a system-wide reduction in peak demand growth of 1,400 MW by 2012, the amount of load reduction achievable in the project area by 2010 is not sufficient for the load management/conservation solution to meet the purpose and need.
TVA subsequently addressed two alternatives in further detail in the EIS.
Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, TVA would not address the forecast high-voltage transmission capacity problem by implementing any of the potential solutions identified above. This would make existing electrical supplies unstable and increase likelihood of both planned and
Under Alternative 2, TVA would construct and operate a new 500-kV substation in southwest Rutherford County and associated 500-kV and 161-kV transmission lines. The preferred locations for these facilities were determined through a rigorous siting process, which included evaluations of natural and cultural features, land use, engineering attributes, and cost. The substation would be located on Coleman Hill Road, about 4 miles east of U.S. Alternate Highway 31/41. A 27-mile 500-kV transmission line would be built on vacant, TVA-owned ROW between TVAs existing Maury 500-kV Substation and the proposed new substation. A 9-mile 161-kV transmission line would connect the new substation to MTEMCs existing Almaville 161-kV Substation; 6 miles of this line would be on vacant TVA-owned ROW, and the remainder would be on new ROW. A 15-mile 161-kV transmission line on new ROW would connect the new substation to MTEMCs existing Christiana 161-kV Substation.
The proposed substation would occupy a 53-acre site and about 40 acres of it would be cleared and graded. Major substation components include 500-161-kV transformers, circuit breakers, connecting bus work, supporting steel superstructure, ground wire towers, microwave communication tower, spill retention basins and retention pond or tank, switch house, and equipment storage building, enclosed by a security fence. The proposed 500-kV transmission line would use self-supporting galvanized, laced steel structures about 85 to 125 feet tall. The average distance between structures would be about 1000 feet. The electrical conductors would consist of three sets of three cables suspended beneath the structure cross-arms by insulators. The proposed 161-kV transmission lines would use either single or double steel-pole structures 80 to 110 feet tall and three single-cable conductors suspended beneath cross-arms by insulators.
Most of the ROW for the 500-kV transmission line would be 175 feet wide; about two miles of the ROW near the proposed substation would be 425 feet wide to accommodate parallel lower voltage lines. For ROW it does not already own, TVA would purchase easements from landowners. Because of the need to maintain adequate clearance between tall vegetation and the transmission line conductors, as well as to provide access for construction equipment, most trees and shrubs would initially be removed from the entire width of the ROW. Trees outside of the ROW which are tall enough to pass within 10 feet of a conductor if they fell towards the line would also be removed. Following line construction, the ROW would be revegetated with low-growing plants. The ROW can be used by the landowner for many purposes that do not interfere with the maintenance and operation of the line. TVA would periodically inspect and conduct maintenance activities on the completed line. The major maintenance activity is vegetation management, conducted to maintain adequate clearance around the conductors. This would consist of both felling tall trees adjacent to the ROW and control of vegetation within the ROW. Management of vegetation within the ROW would use an integrated vegetation management approach based primarily on mechanical mowing and herbicide application.
TVA received comments on the Final EIS from two State and two Federal Government agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested a comparison of the number of stream crossings potentially affected by the various alternative solutions. Although TVA did not conduct detailed field surveys of the Pinhook and Brentwood alternative solutions and thus cannot compare the number of potentially affected stream crossings with the same accuracy available for the Rutherford solution, the Pinhook and Brentwood solutions would potentially affect more stream crossings because they both involve over twice the length of transmission lines. The potential impacts to individual stream crossings under the Pinhook and Brentwood solutions, however, would likely be less because the transmission lines and most of the potential access roads already exist and there would be little to no clearing of new ROWs.
EPA commented on the discussion of potential impacts to wetlands in the Final EIS and noted that conversion of forested wetlands is impactful given the loss of forest habitat and fragmentation of contiguous habitat. TVA agrees with this and notes that the 2.3 acres of forested wetlands that would be converted to scrub-shrub wetlands under the selected alternative occur is several disjunct tracts associated with previously fragmented forests.
EPA requested additional information on the anticipated relocation and proximity of homes, schools, and churches to the proposed transmission lines, as well as the potential environmental justice impacts. Two mobile homes and one occupied house occur entirely within the TVA-owned ROW to be used for the 500-kV line, and a vacant brick house is partially within this ROW. All of these buildings would be relocated. Two fairly new brick houses slightly extend onto this ROW; TVA has determined that they would not have to be removed and will likely issue their owners a permit for the occupancy of the ROW and add an associated covenant to their deeds. One vacant house in a state of disrepair is on one of the 161-kV FOWs and would be removed. No occupied buildings are on or in the immediate vicinity of the substation site. Six churches occur near the route of the 500-kV line; their closest and average distances from the ROW are 500 and 2,500 feet, respectively. The closest school to any of the facilities is an elementary school 3,000 feet from a 161-kV line. The closest churches are 400 and 1,200 feet from a 161-kV line. Relative to the three project area counties, the proportions of the overall population of the 12 adjacent surrounding counties classified as minority or below the poverty level vary greatly and are, on average, higher.
EPA requested spot monitoring of electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the vicinity of nearby residences. TVA does not intend to conduct EMF monitoring; TVA will, however, measure EMF field strength if requested to do so by adjacent property owners. Based on the design of the 500-kV transmission line and EMF measurements at other similar lines, TVA expects the EMF field strength under the maximum design electrical load at the edge of the 500-kV ROW to be significantly less than the Florida standards of 150 milligauss for lines 230-kV or less and 200 milligauss for lines 500-kV lines or more cited in the Final EIS.
The Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance resubmitted the comments it had sent on the Draft EIS and which TVA had inadvertently failed to address in the Final EIS. DOI requested supporting references for many statements of fact and field survey descriptions. DOI also requested more specific information on the implementation of best management practices(BMPs). Some of this detailed implementation information is listed in Appendices H and J of the Final EIS, which describe the streamside management zone to be established along each watercourse. Additional BMP implementation details are listed in the stormwater pollution prevention plans for the various project components. TVAs BMP manual, cited as Muncy (1999) in the Final EIS, is
TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS, Alternative 2. Of the two alternatives evaluated in the Final EIS, Alternative 1—No Action and Alternative 2, only Alternative 2 would meet the purpose and need. TVA used an iterative process to define Alternative 2; this process first considered other potential solutions and then considered various potential alternative substation locations and transmission line routes for the preferred alternative. The substation location and transmission line routes were identified as part of Alternative 2 after being evaluated for engineering and construction, ecological, cultural, line length, and land use criteria. The substation site and transmission line routes were then further modified to minimize effects on individual landowners as well as effects on natural and cultural resources. This effort continued TVAs consideration of potential environmental impacts that occurred during the consideration of other possible solutions (alternatives) to the purpose and need here.
The Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with TVAs determination that Alternative 2, with the implementation of mitigation measures described in a Memorandum of Agreement and other measures listed in the Final EIS, would not adversely affect any archaeological or historic sites eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with TVAs determination that Alternative 2, with the implementation of mitigation measures listed in the Final EIS, would not adversely affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Alternative 1 No Action is the environmentally preferred alternative because the impacts associated with constructing and operating the substation and associated transmission lines would not occur. This alternative, however, would result in the risk of the loss of electrical service to a large area of Middle Tennessee with a total load of over 4000 megawatts and is considered unreasonable. The loss of this electrical service would result in social and economic impacts.
Alternative 2 has been designed to minimize environmental impacts as much as is feasible. While some or all of the other three potential solutions analyzed early in the development of this project could have resulted in less environmental impacts than Alternative 2, none of these solutions would have met the purpose and need and thus they were not considered reasonable alternatives.
For the reasons discussed in the Final EIS and summarized here, TVA is committing to the following measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the potential environmental impacts associated with these actions:
• No herbicides with groundwater protection warnings will be used in the sections of the Maury Transmission Line between Double Branch and Double Branch Road, Greens Mill Road and Cornstock Road, and Cross Keys Flat to Boon Creek. No fertilizers will be used in the groundwater source protection zone from Windrow Road to the end of the Maury Transmission Line study area, and neither herbicides nor fertilizers will be used in the section of the Maury Transmission Line from Windrow Road to Arno-Allisona Road.
• No herbicides with groundwater protection warnings and no fertilizers will be used in the sections of the Almaville Transmission Line from where the ROW intersects the existing Murfreesboro-East Franklin Transmission Line north to where the Almaville Transmission Line turns to the west.
• No herbicides with groundwater protection warnings and no fertilizers will be used in the section of the Christiana Transmission Line within 500 feet of the entrance to Nanna Cave.
• Should groundwater conduits be discovered within the TVA transmission line ROW at a later date that affect the stream at Snail Shell Cave or Nanna Cave, TVA will modify its construction and maintenance procedures to eliminate herbicide use in the conduit areas.
• Globally rare glade habitat areas will be marked on the transmission line and access road engineering design specification drawings that will be used during the design, construction, and maintenance activities along the transmission line.
• During the construction and maintenance of the transmission lines, TVA will avoid the areas associated with the globally rare glade habitats. Unless there is no practical alternative, structure placement and access roads will be designed strategically to avoid these areas. The glade areas will be fenced during construction to ensure further avoidance.
• Vegetation management in globally rare glade habitats will be accomplished through mechanical clearing and no herbicides will be used in these areas.
• No herbicide spraying or mechanical clearing will occur within a 500-foot radius of the entrance to Nanna Cave during the construction and maintenance of the transmission lines to avoid impacts caused by pollution from chemicals and sedimentation from disturbed soil. This area will be hand cleared only (chainsaws may be used, but not heavy equipment). All vehicles and heavy equipment will be restricted from the area unless confined to existing access roads. If the placement of a pole in this buffer or in the area of this route crossing a subterranean section of the Snail Shell Cave System was unavoidable, no blasting will be used during its installation.
• To minimize potential impacts to aquatic habitats and aquatic life, including federally or state-listed species, BMPs as outlined in Muncy (1999) will be applied to all construction and maintenance activities. Additionally, all intermittent and perennial streams were assigned a Category A protection level (Final EIS Appendix J) and will be provided additional protective measures as defined in Final EIS Appendix H and Muncy (1999).
• Areas with state-listed plant species will be included in the transmission line and access road engineering design specification drawings used during the design, construction, and maintenance of the transmission line. During construction and maintenance, TVA will avoid the areas occupied by the state-listed plants. Unless there is no practical alternative, structures will be placed to avoid impacting these areas. Additionally, unless there is no practical alternative, access roads and the associated vehicle traffic will be excluded from these areas. These areas will be fenced during construction. Vegetation management in these areas will be accomplished through mechanical clearing, and no herbicides will be applied in them.
• The location of the toothache tree population along the Maury Transmission Line ROW will be included on the engineering design specification drawings for use during the design, construction, and maintenance of the transmission line. TVA will clear the ROW between November and March when the plant is dormant; shear-clearing (bulldozing) methods will not be used. Vegetation management in the area will be accomplished by mechanical clearing
• The location of the Alabama snow-wreath population will be included on the engineering design specification drawings for use during the design, construction, and maintenance of the transmission line. All construction occurring within 200 feet of the Alabama snow-wreath population will be strictly confined to areas within the Christiana Transmission Line ROW. In addition, fencing will be erected along the edge of the ROW during construction to ensure impacts to Alabama snow-wreath are avoided. Vegetation management within 200 feet of the snow-wreath population will be accomplished by mechanical clearing, and herbicides will not be used in this area.
• The location of Pynes ground-plum will be marked on the engineering design specification drawings for use during the design, construction, and maintenance of the transmission line. Vehicles, construction equipment, and unnecessary personnel will strictly be prohibited from disturbing the population. This will be accomplished by explicitly instructing construction crews to remain on the Christiana Transmission Line ROW in the immediate vicinity of the population and to avoid any activity in this area (felling trees, grading, inadvertently accessing the site with vehicles, etc.) that will alter the habitat. In addition, fencing will be erected along the edge of the ROW during construction to ensure impacts to Pynes ground-plum are avoided. Vegetation management within 500 feet of the ground-plum population will be accomplished by mechanical clearing; herbicides will not be used in this area.
• Prior to the transmission line construction clearing, TVA will contract with the state of Tennessee to treat all tree-of-heaven within the proposed Almaville Transmission Line ROW to reduce the risk of spreading within the designated critical habitat. This will be accomplished by using a basal bark application of Garlon 4 herbicide before trees are cleared from the proposed ROW. The tank mixture will consist of a 20 percent Garlon 4/80 percent carrier solution of specially formulated vegetable oil. Using a backpack sprayer, herbicide will be applied to the trunk of each tree-of-heaven stem from ground level to 18 inches high. All areas of the trunk in this band will be thoroughly wetted with herbicide.
• Timber harvesting for ROW clearing in six areas of moderately suitable habitat for the Indiana bat will take place between October 15 and March 31.
• To minimize potential impacts to the gray bat, a 500-foot-radius buffer at the entrance to Nanna Cave and standard BMPs at all stream crossings (Muncy 1999) will be implemented during the construction and maintenance of the transmission lines.
• Access roads that contain habitat for federally and state-listed species will be resurveyed during the growing season prior to use for any ROW construction or clearing. Should an occurrence(s) be found within the area encompassing any of the access roads as proposed, the occurrence(s) will be avoided by either rerouting the access road or not using that particular access road. Any new roads that will be considered as alternatives will also be surveyed before their use.
• In order to avoid adverse effects to archaeological site 40WM35, TVA will not place transmission line structures within the site or cause other ground disturbance of the site. If impacts to the site cannot be avoided in this manner, TVA will conduct further Phase II archaeological testing to identify locations for structure placement that will not adversely affect the site.
• Archaeological sites 40RD280 and 40RD281 will be avoided by the rerouting of a section of the Christiana Transmission Line.
• TVA will implement the treatment measures necessary to mitigate adverse effects on two historic sites, the William Allison house and the Smithson-McCall farm. As described in a Memorandum of Agreement developed between TVA, the Tennessee State Historical Preservation Officer, and other interested parties (Appendix B-1), these measures include minimizing the number and height of the structures within the line-of-site and the use, where possible, of vegetative screening measures at the landowners request.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—
UP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on July 24, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
UP has filed a combined environmental and historic report addressing the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by June 27, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by June 24, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
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 take this opportunity to comment on a continuing 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 OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Fair Housing Home Loan Data System Regulation—12 CFR 27.”
You should submit your comments by August 25, 2008.
You should direct all written comments to: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0159, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874-4448, or by electronic mail to
Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0159, 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 can request additional information from Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to revise the following information collection:
The information collection requirements in 12 CFR part 27 are as follows:
• Section 27.3(a) requires a national bank that is required to collect data on home loans under 12 CFR part 203 to present the data on Federal Reserve Form FR HMDA-LAR,
• Section 27.3(b) lists the information banks should obtain from an applicant as part of a home loan application, and states information that a bank must disclose to an applicant.
• Section 27.3(c) sets forth additional information required to be kept in the loan file.
• Section 27.4 states that the OCC may require a national bank to maintain a Fair Housing Inquiry/Application Log found in Appendix III to part 27 if there is reason to believe that the bank is engaging in discriminatory practices or if analysis of the data compiled by the bank under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2801
• Section 27.5 requires a national bank to maintain the information required by § 27.3 for 25 months after the bank notifies the applicant of action
• Section 27.7 requires a national bank to submit the information required by §§ 27.3(a) and 27.4 to the OCC upon its request, prior to a scheduled examination using the Monthly Home Loan Activity Format form in Appendix I to part 27 and the Home Loan Data Form in Appendix IV to part 27.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
9 a.m. (Eastern Time), June 30, 2008.
2nd Floor Training Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public.
1. Approval of the minutes of the May 19, 2008 Board member meeting.
2. Approval of the minutes of the December 19, 2007 ETAC meeting.
3. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
a. Participant Activity Report.
b. Investment Performance Report.
4. New Business.
a. TSP System Modernization.
b. Congressional discussion draft on (1) automatic enrollment, (2) L Fund default option, (3) Roth account option, (4) Board authority to add funds or create a self-directed mutual fund window.
c. Allowing a spousal beneficiary to inherit and maintain a TSP account.
5. Procurement/Confidential Vendor Financial Data.
6. Security.
Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Health Services Research and Development Service Merit Review Board will be held August 19-21, 2008, at the Hyatt Harborside at Boston's Logan International Airport, 101 Harborside Drive, Boston, Massachusetts. Various subcommittees of the Board will meet during the review period. Each subcommittee meeting of the Merit Review Board will be open to the public the first day for approximately one half-hour from 8 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. to cover administrative matters and to discuss the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meetings will be closed. The closed portion of each meeting will involve discussion, examination, reference to, and oral review of the research proposals and critiques.
The purpose of the Board is to review research and development applications involving the measurement and evaluation of health care services, the testing of new methods of health care delivery and management, and nursing research. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit. Recommendations regarding funding are submitted to the Chief Research and Development Officer.
On August 19, the subcommittee on Nursing Research Initiative will convene from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. On August 20-21, five subcommittees—Health Services Research A, Health Services Research B, Health Services Research C, Health Services Research D, and Health Services Research E—will convene from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
After the subcommittees meet there will be a debriefing provided to members of the Health Services Research & Development Scientific Merit Review Board. The purposes of the debriefing are to discuss the outcomes of the review sessions and to ensure the integrity and consistency of the review process.
During the closed portion of each meeting, discussion and recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research information (the premature disclosure of which would likely compromise significantly the implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects). As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing portions of each meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
Those who plan to attend the open session should contact Ms. Rita Lysik, Scientific Merit Review Program Manager, at (202) 254-0225, or Health Services Research and Development Service (124R), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at least five days before the meeting.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is publishing a summary of a legal interpretation issued by the Department's General Counsel involving veterans' benefits under laws administered by VA. This interpretation is considered precedential by VA and will be followed by VA officials and employees in future claim matters involving the same legal issues. The summary is published to provide the public, and, in particular, veterans' benefits claimants and their representatives, with notice of VA's interpretation regarding the legal matter at issue.
Susan P. Sokoll, Law Librarian, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., (026H), Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7623.
VA regulations at 38 CFR 2.6(e)(8) and 14.507 authorize the Department's General Counsel to issue written legal opinions having precedential effect in adjudications and appeals involving veterans' benefits under laws administered by VA. The interpretations of the General Counsel on legal matters, contained in such opinions, are conclusive as to all VA officials and employees not only in the matter at issue but also in future adjudications and appeals involving the same legal issues, in the absence of a change in controlling statute or regulation or a superseding written legal opinion of the General Counsel.
VA publishes summaries of such opinions in order to provide the public with notice of those interpretations of the General Counsel that must be followed in future benefit matters and to assist veterans' benefits claimants and their representatives in the prosecution of benefit claims. The full text of such opinions, with personal identifiers deleted, may be obtained by contacting the VA official named above or by accessing the opinions on the internet at
May VA reimburse a veteran who submitted an initial application for Specially Adapted Housing assistance but who, before filing a supplemental application, paid in full the costs of acquiring the adapted home?
The Secretary is authorized to provide Specially Adapted Housing assistance to a veteran if: (i) The veteran submitted a VA Form 26-4555 prior to paying in full the costs of the adapted home; (ii) the veteran was not seeking reimbursement for adaptations made prior to the date of application or for unspecified future adaptations; (iii) the veteran later submitted VA Form 26-4555c; and (iv) the Secretary determines that the veteran and the veteran's adapted home meet all other statutory and regulatory requirements.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes regulations for seasons, harvest limits, methods, and means related to taking of wildlife for subsistence uses in Alaska during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 regulatory years. These regulations have been subject to an annual public review cycle, but starting in 2008 the Federal Subsistence Management Program will provide a public review process for subsistence hunting and trapping regulations in even-numbered years and subsistence fishing and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years. The Program will also address customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable biennial cycle. This cycle adjustment does not affect the public's ability to submit special action requests or requests for reconsideration, as outlined in the regulations. This rulemaking replaces the subpart D subsistence taking of wildlife taking regulations which expire June 30, 2008. This rule also amends the customary and traditional use determinations of the Federal Subsistence Board.
Sections __.24(a)(1) and __.25 are effective July 1, 2008. Section __.26 is effective July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2010.
The Board meeting transcripts are available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or on the Office of Subsistence Management Web site (
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Peter J. Probasco, Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Steve Kessler, Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region, (907) 786-3592.
In title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), Congress found that “the situation in Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, no practical alternative means are available to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife which supply rural residents dependent on subsistence uses. * * *” and that “continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses of resources on public and other lands in Alaska is threatened. * * *” As a result, title VIII requires, among other things, that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a joint program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA.
The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior previously found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in
As a result of the
As a result of this joint process between Interior and Agriculture, these regulations can be found in two titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and title 50, “Wildlife and Fisheries,” at 36 CFR 242.1-28 and 50 CFR 100.1-28, respectively. The regulations contain subparts as follows: subpart A, General Provisions; subpart B, Program Structure; subpart C, Board Determinations; and subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife. Throughout this document, a reference to a specific CFR section that is preceded by an underscore (e.g., § __.24) means that that section appears in both 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100.
Consistent with subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised May 7, 2007 (72 FR 25688), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition includes:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service;
• The Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
• The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service.
Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for subparts A and B, which set forth and guide the program, subpart C, which addresses Board determinations, and subpart D, which covers subsistence taking of fish and wildlife.
The Federal subsistence management regulations divide Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Regional Council) (36 CFR 242.11 and 50 CFR 100.11). The Regional Councils provide a forum for rural residents, who have personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements, to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Alaska public lands and waters. The Regional Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, social, and user diversity within each region.
These regulations have been subject to an annual public review cycle, but
The Departments published a proposed rule on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20884), to amend subparts C and D of 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100. The Departments advertised the proposed rule by mail, radio, and newspaper. During the comment period, the Regional Councils met and, in addition to other Regional Council business, received suggestions for proposals from the public. The Board received 41 proposals for changes to subparts C and D. In addition, 13 Board-deferred proposals were brought forward for a total of 54 proposals. After the proposal period closed, the Board prepared a booklet describing the proposals that was distributed to the public; this booklet was also available online. Once the booklet was distributed, the public had an additional 30 days in which to comment on the proposals for changes to the regulations.
The 10 Regional Councils met a second time to receive public comments and formulated their recommendations to the Board on proposals affecting their respective regions. The Regional Councils had a substantial role in reviewing the proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. Moreover, a Council Chair, or a designated representative, presented each Council's recommendations at the Board meeting of April 29-May 1, 2008. These final regulations reflect Board review and consideration of Regional Council recommendations and public comments. The public has had extensive opportunity to review and comment on all changes.
Of the 54 proposals, the Board adopted 23, rejected 25, and deferred 6. Of the 23 adopted proposals, 15 were with modifications; of the 25 rejected proposals, 1 was based on action that the Board had taken on previous related proposals. The Board deferred 6 proposals to allow collection of additional information or to allow for working groups to meet and provide clarification.
Detailed information relating to justification for the action on each proposal may be found in the Board meeting materials and transcripts, available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or on the Office of Subsistence Management Web site (
The Board rejected or deferred 31 proposals. The rejected proposals were recommended for rejection by one or more of the Regional Councils.
The Board rejected a statewide proposal to extend wolf hunting and trapping seasons, increase the harvest limits, and remove restrictions on disturbing or destroying wolf dens because of a concern that the proposal violates recognized principles of wildlife conservation.
The Board deferred a proposal to remove unit-specific regulations related to the statewide sale of brown bear handicrafts made of skin, hide, pelt or fur and then limit the sale of brown bear handicrafts made of claws, bones, teeth, sinew, or skulls to occur only between Federally qualified subsistence users. This deferment will allow creation of a working group to address the feasibility of marking and tracking bear claws.
The Board deferred a proposal to recognize customary and traditional use of moose by rural residents of Units 1C and 1D and establish a season and harvest limit for moose in the Berners Bay drainages. The deferment will allow additional time to analyze customary and traditional use of Unit 1C moose by rural residents of Units 1-5.
The Board rejected a proposal to change the subsistence allocation for moose in Unit 6C as unnecessarily restrictive for subsistence users.
The Board rejected two proposals to change the salvage requirements for brown bear in Unit 11 because of a lack of substantial evidence for customary and traditional practices specific to the proposals.
The Board rejected two proposals to eliminate the late fall Federal moose seasons in Units 15B and 15C because current regulations address conservation concerns and this proposal would be unnecessarily restrictive for subsistence users.
The Board rejected three proposals to turn in or destroy the trophy value of moose antlers in Unit 15 because of a concern that these proposals are unnecessarily restrictive for subsistence users.
The Board deferred two proposals for moose in Units 9B and 9C; one proposal would shorten the Federal subsistence season in Unit 9B, and the other would close Federal public lands in Unit 9B and a portion of Unit 9C to the taking of moose by non-Federally qualified subsistence users. This deferment will allow additional time for stakeholders to address alternate solutions to resolve concerns regarding the current moose population and harvest levels.
The Board rejected a proposal to add Unit 11 to the list of units that can use brown bear parts for handicrafts for sale. The Board has consistently emphasized that regulations for brown bear handicrafts are not appropriate as statewide regulations and should be adopted only for those regions where it has been a traditional practice. The Southcentral Alaska Regional Advisory Council reiterated its opposition to the sale of brown bear handicrafts in Unit 11.
The Board rejected a proposal that would have added Kachemak-Selo, Razdolna, and Voznesenka to the customary and traditional use determination for moose in Units 15B and 15C. Insufficient information was available to evaluate these communities' customary and traditional use of moose.
The Board rejected a proposal to close Federal public land in a portion of Unit 18 to non-Federally qualified users to hunt moose. The Board found that the proposal was not supported by substantial evidence. Because of the current status of the moose population, ANILCA section 815.3 does not allow the proposed closure.
Based on conservation concerns, the Board rejected a proposal to establish a moose season in a portion of Unit 19A.
The Board rejected two proposals requesting customary and traditional use determinations for ground squirrel and porcupine in Unit 22 by residents of Unit 22. Current Federal subsistence regulations list these animals as unclassified wildlife. The Board does not make customary and traditional use determinations for unclassified wildlife.
Because of Board action on other proposals, the Board rejected a proposal on designated hunters in Unit 22A.
The Board rejected nine proposals for customary and traditional use determinations for residents of Unit 22 for beaver, Arctic fox, red fox, hare, lynx, marten, wolverine, grouse, and ptarmigan in Unit 22. These proposals were rejected because they would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs by those residing in surrounding units. Rejection of these proposals has no effect on subsistence users in Unit 22 or surrounding units.
The Board deferred two proposals that would have changed the time period for aircraft flight restrictions over the Noatak Controlled Use Area. These proposals were deferred to allow a working group to present alternate courses of actions or recommendations concerning the Noatak Controlled Use Area.
The Board adopted 23 proposals. Some of these proposals were adopted as submitted. Others were adopted with modifications suggested by the respective Regional Council, modifications developed during the analysis process, or modifications developed during the Board's public deliberations.
All of the adopted proposals were recommended for adoption by at least one of the Regional Councils, although further modifications were made to some during Board deliberations, and were based on customary and traditional uses or harvest practices, or on protecting wildlife populations.
The Board adopted a proposal associated with deer harvest in Units 1B and 3. The modified proposal allows the Petersburg District Ranger to announce a December season in Unit 3, remainder and to close the seasons in Units 1B and 3 based on conservation concerns.
The Board adopted two proposals extending the Unit 11 wolverine trapping season and modified it to align that season with the lynx trapping season.
The Board adopted a proposal with modifications to lengthen the goat season in a portion of Unit 11 that is bounded by the Chitina and Nizina rivers on the south, the Kennicott River and glacier on the southeast, and the Root Glacier on the east.
The Board adopted a proposal with a modification to establish a muskrat hunting season in Unit 11.
The Board adopted a proposal with modifications to allow for the harvest of 5 deer in Unit 6D by the Native Village of Chenega for an annual memorial event.
The Board adopted a proposal with modifications to allow for the harvest of 5 deer in Unit 6D by the Tatitlek IRA Council for their annual cultural heritage week.
The Board adopted a proposal with a modification to allow a designated hunter to harvest a goat in Unit 6D on behalf of a Federally qualified user who is either blind, 65 years of age or older, at least 70% disabled, or temporarily disabled.
The Board adopted a proposal to expand the beaver trapping season in Unit 11 and change the harvest limit to “no limit”.
The Board adopted a proposal to re-establish a Federal registration permit
The Board adopted a proposal with modifications to recognize a customary and traditional use determination for moose by residents of Cooper Landing in Units 7 and 15A and 15B and establish a season and harvest limit in Unit 7.
The Board adopted a proposal with modification to recognize a customary and traditional use determination for brown bear for residents of Igiugig, Kakhonak, and Levelock in Unit 9C and establish a season and harvest limit by Federal registration permit.
The Board adopted a proposal with modification to more clearly define who is eligible to participate in the resident zone subsistence brown bear hunt in Unit 9B.
The Board adopted a proposal to include residents of Units 9A, 9B, 9C, 9E, and 17 in the general provisions allowing designated hunter provisions for deer, moose, and caribou.
The Board adopted a proposal for Unit 9 to require that all edible meat of moose and caribou remain on the bone until the meat is removed from the field or is processed for human consumption.
The Board adopted two proposals focused on caribou in Units 9D and 10. In Unit 9D the Federal season was closed due to a low caribou population, and in Unit 10, the harvest limit was reduced because of a caribou population decline.
The Board adopted a proposal with modification to establish a moose season in Unit 18 in the Goodnews River drainage, and south to the unit boundary.
The Board adopted two proposals with modifications to remove a closure to moose hunting in Unit 22A only for residents of Unalakleet, and to establish a season for those residents.
The Board adopted a proposal to add Unit 23 to the list of areas from which the skin, hide, pelt or fur, including claws of brown bears can be used to make handicrafts for sale.
The Board adopted a proposal with modification to add Unit 26 and a portion of Unit 24B to the list of areas from which the skin, hide, pelt or fur, including claws of brown bears can be used to make handicrafts for sale.
The Board adopted a proposal with modification for moose in Unit 26C and portions of Unit 26B to adjust the harvest requirement from bulls to antlered bulls. Other proposed changes violated principles of wildlife conservation.
These final regulations reflect Board review and consideration of Regional Council recommendations and public comments. All Board members have reviewed this rule and agree with its substance. Because this rule concerns public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.
The Board has provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements, including participation in multiple Regional Council meetings, additional public review and comment on all proposals for regulatory change, and opportunity for additional public comment during the Board meeting prior to deliberation. Additionally, an administrative mechanism exists (and has been used by the public) to request reconsideration of the Board's decision on any particular proposal for regulatory change. Therefore, we believe that sufficient public notice has been given to affected persons about the Board decisions.
In the more than 18 years the Program has been operating, no benefit to the public has been demonstrated by delaying the effective date of the subsistence regulations. A lapse in regulatory control could affect the continued viability of fish or wildlife populations and future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans, and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon the date set forth in
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. That document described the major issues associated with Federal subsistence management as identified through public meetings, written comments, and staff analyses and examined the environmental consequences of four alternatives. Proposed regulations (subparts A, B, and C) that would implement the preferred alternative were included in the DEIS as an appendix. The DEIS and the proposed administrative regulations presented a framework for a regulatory cycle regarding subsistence hunting and fishing regulations (subpart D). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992.
Based on the public comments received, the analysis contained in the FEIS, and the recommendations of the Federal Subsistence Board and the Department of the Interior's Subsistence Policy Group, the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, implemented Alternative IV as identified in the DEIS and FEIS (Record of Decision on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska (ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS and the selected alternative in the FEIS defined the administrative framework of a regulatory cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. The final rule for subsistence management regulations for public lands in Alaska, subparts A, B, and C, implemented the Federal Subsistence Management Program and included a framework for a regulatory cycle for the subsistence taking of wildlife and fish. The following
An environmental assessment was prepared in 1997 on the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available from the office listed under
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process. The final Section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD, which concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but the program is not likely to significantly restrict subsistence uses.
This rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that need Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule applies to the use of public lands in Alaska. The information collection requirements described in this rule are already approved by OMB and have been assigned control number 1018-0075, which expires October 31, 2009. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Economic Effects—The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
This rulemaking will impose no significant costs on small entities; the exact number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result from this Federal land-related activity is unknown. The aggregate effect is an insignificant positive economic effect on a number of small entities, such as sporting goods, ammunition, and gasoline dealers. The number of small entities affected is unknown; however, the fact that the positive effects will be seasonal in nature and will, in most cases, merely continue preexisting uses of public lands indicates that the effects will not be significant.
This rule benefits those participants who engage in the subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife in Alaska in two identifiable ways: First, participants get the consumptive value of the food harvested, and second, participants get the cultural benefit associated with the maintenance of a subsistence lifestyle. We can estimate the consumptive value for fish and wildlife harvested under this rule but can place no dollar value on the maintenance of a subsistence lifestyle. However, we estimate that 8.7 million pounds of wildlife are harvested by the local subsistence users annually and, if based on a replacement value of $5.00 per pound, would equate to $43.5 million in food value Statewide. The cultural benefits of maintaining a subsistence lifestyle can also be of considerable value to the participants.
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential implications for takings of private property as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Service has determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless the State's program is compliant with the requirements of that title.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), 512 DM 2, and E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no significant direct effects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a participating agency in this rulemaking.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Drafting Information—Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of Peter J. Probasco of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by
• Elijah Waters, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;
• Sandy Rabinowitch, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Warren Eastland, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Jerry Berg and Carl Jack, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
(a) * * *
(1)
(a)
W
(b) Taking fish, wildlife, or shellfish for subsistence uses by a prohibited method is a violation of this part. Seasons are closed unless opened by Federal regulation. Hunting, trapping, or fishing during a closed season or in an area closed by this part is prohibited. You may not take for subsistence fish, wildlife, or shellfish outside established Unit or Area seasons, or in excess of the established Unit or Area harvest limits, unless otherwise provided for by the Board. You may take fish, wildlife, or shellfish under State regulations on public lands, except as otherwise restricted at §§_.26 through _.28. Unit/Area-specific restrictions or allowances for subsistence taking of fish, wildlife, or shellfish are identified at §§_.26 through _.28.
(c)
(2) Fish, wildlife, or shellfish taken by a designated individual for another person pursuant to §_.10(d)(5)(ii) counts toward the individual harvest limit of the person for whom the fish, wildlife, or shellfish is taken.
(3) A harvest limit applies to the number of fish, wildlife, or shellfish that can be taken during a regulatory year; however, harvest limits for grouse, ptarmigan, and caribou (in some Units) are regulated by the number that may be taken per day. Harvest limits of grouse and ptarmigan are also regulated by the number that can be held in possession.
(4) Unless otherwise provided, any person who gives or receives fish, wildlife, or shellfish must furnish, upon a request made by a Federal or State agent, a signed statement describing the following: Names and addresses of persons who gave and received fish, wildlife, or shellfish; the time and place that the fish, wildlife, or shellfish was taken; and identification of species transferred. Where a qualified subsistence user has designated another qualified subsistence user to take fish, wildlife, or shellfish on his or her behalf in accordance with § _.10(d)(5)(ii), the permit must be furnished in place of a signed statement.
(d)
(2) If you are a Federally qualified subsistence user, you (beneficiary) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take fish on your behalf. The designated fisherman must obtain a designated harvest permit prior to attempting to harvest fish and must return a completed harvest report. The
(3) The designated fisherman must have in possession a valid designated fishing permit when taking, attempting to take, or transporting fish taken under this section, on behalf of a beneficiary.
(4) The designated fisherman may not fish with more than one legal limit of gear.
(5) You may not designate more than one person to take or attempt to take fish on your behalf at one time. You may not personally take or attempt to take fish at the same time that a designated fisherman is taking or attempting to take fish on your behalf.
(e)
(f) A rural Alaska resident who has been designated to take fish, wildlife, or shellfish on behalf of another rural Alaska resident in accordance with § _.10(d)(5)(ii) must promptly deliver the fish, wildlife, or shellfish to that rural Alaska resident and may not charge the recipient for his/her services in taking the fish, wildlife, or shellfish or claim for themselves the meat or any part of the harvested fish, wildlife, or shellfish.
(g) [Reserved].
(h)
(1) You may not take more fish, wildlife, or shellfish for subsistence use than the limits set out in the permit;
(2) You must obtain the permit prior to fishing or hunting;
(3) You must have the permit in your possession and readily available for inspection while fishing, hunting, or transporting subsistence-taken fish, wildlife, or shellfish;
(4) If specified on the permit, you must keep accurate daily records of the harvest, showing the number of fish, wildlife, or shellfish taken, by species, location and date of harvest, and other such information as may be required for management or conservation purposes; and
(5) If the return of harvest information necessary for management and conservation purposes is required by a permit and you fail to comply with such reporting requirements, you are ineligible to receive a subsistence permit for that activity during the following regulatory year, unless you demonstrate that failure to report was due to loss in the mail, accident, sickness, or other unavoidable circumstances.
(i) You may not possess, transport, give, receive, or barter fish, wildlife, or shellfish that was taken in violation of Federal or State statutes or a regulation promulgated hereunder.
(j)
(i) The hide, skin, viscera, head, or bones of wildlife;
(ii) The skinned carcass of a furbearer;
(iii) Squirrels, hares (rabbits), grouse, or ptarmigan; however, you may not use the breast meat of grouse and ptarmigan as animal food or bait;
(iv) Unclassified wildlife.
(2) If you take wildlife for subsistence, you must salvage the following parts for human use:
(i) The hide of a wolf, wolverine, coyote, fox, lynx, marten, mink, weasel, or otter;
(ii) The hide and edible meat of a brown bear, except that the hide of brown bears taken in Units 5, 9B, 17, 18, portions of 19A and 19B, 21D, 22, 23, 24, and 26A need not be salvaged;
(iii) The hide and edible meat of a black bear;
(iv) The hide or meat of squirrels, hares, marmots, beaver, muskrats, or unclassified wildlife.
(3) You must salvage the edible meat of ungulates, bear, grouse, and ptarmigan.
(4) You may not intentionally waste or destroy any subsistence-caught fish or shellfish; however, you may use for bait or other purposes whitefish, herring, and species for which bag limits, seasons, or other regulatory methods and means are not provided in this section, as well as the head, tail, fins, and viscera of legally taken subsistence fish.
(5) Failure to salvage the edible meat may not be a violation if such failure is caused by circumstances beyond the control of a person, including theft of the harvested fish, wildlife, or shellfish, unanticipated weather conditions, or unavoidable loss to another animal.
(6) If you are a Federally qualified subsistence user, you may sell handicraft articles made from the skin, hide, pelt, or fur, including claws, of a black bear.
(i) In Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, you may sell handicraft articles made from the skin, hide, pelt, fur, claws, bones, teeth, sinew, or skulls of a black bear taken from Units 1, 2, 3, or 5.
(ii) [Reserved].
(7) If you are a Federally qualified subsistence user, you may sell handicraft articles made from the skin, hide, pelt, or fur, including claws, of a brown bear taken from Units 1-5, 9A-C, 9E, 12, 17, 20, 23, 24B (only that portion within Gates of the Arctic National Park), 25, or 26.
(i) In Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, you may sell handicraft articles made from the skin, hide, pelt, fur, claws, bones, teeth, sinew, or skulls of a brown bear taken from Units 1, 4, or 5.
(ii) [Reserved].
(8) If you are a Federally qualified subsistence user, you may sell the raw fur or tanned pelt with or without claws attached from legally harvested furbearers.
(9) If you are a Federally qualified subsistence user, you may sell handicraft articles made from the nonedible byproducts (including, but not limited to, skin, shell, fins, and bones) of subsistence-harvested fish or shellfish.
(10) If you are a Federally qualified subsistence user, you may sell handicraft articles made from nonedible byproducts of wildlife harvested for subsistence uses (excluding bear), to include: Skin, hide, pelt, fur, claws, bones (except skulls of moose, caribou, elk, deer, sheep, goat and musk ox), teeth, sinew, antlers and/or horns (if not attached to any part of the skull or made to represent a big game trophy) and hooves.
(11) The sale of handicrafts made from the nonedible byproducts of wildlife, when authorized in this part, may not constitute a significant commercial enterprise.
(12) You may sell the horns and antlers not attached to any part of the skull from legally harvested caribou (except caribou harvested in Unit 23), deer, elk, goat, moose, musk ox, and sheep.
(13) You may sell the raw/untanned and tanned hide or cape from a legally harvested caribou, deer, elk, goat, moose, musk ox, and sheep.
(k) The regulations found in this part do not apply to the subsistence taking and use of fish, wildlife, or shellfish regulated pursuant to the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1091, 16 U.S.C. 1187); the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543); the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1027; 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407); and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-711), or to any amendments to these Acts. The taking and use of fish, wildlife, or shellfish, covered by these Acts, will conform to the specific provisions contained in these Acts, as amended, and any implementing regulations.
(l) Rural residents, nonrural residents, and nonresidents not specifically prohibited by Federal regulations from fishing, hunting, or trapping on public lands in an area may fish, hunt, or trap on public lands in accordance with the appropriate State regulations.
(a) You may take wildlife for subsistence uses by any method, except as prohibited in this section or by other Federal statute. Taking wildlife for subsistence uses by a prohibited method is a violation of this part. Seasons are closed unless opened by Federal regulation. Hunting or trapping during a closed season or in an area closed by this part is prohibited.
(b) Except for special provisions found at paragraphs (n)(1) through (26) of this section, the following methods and means of taking wildlife for subsistence uses are prohibited:
(1) Shooting from, on, or across a highway;
(2) Using any poison;
(3) Using a helicopter in any manner, including transportation of individuals, equipment, or wildlife; however, this prohibition does not apply to transportation of an individual, gear, or wildlife during an emergency rescue operation in a life-threatening situation;
(4) Taking wildlife from a motorized land or air vehicle when that vehicle is in motion, or from a motor-driven boat when the boat's progress from the motor's power has not ceased;
(5) Using a motorized vehicle to drive, herd, or molest wildlife;
(6) Using or being aided by use of a machine gun, set gun, or a shotgun larger than 10 gauge;
(7) Using a firearm other than a shotgun, muzzle-loaded rifle, rifle, or pistol using center-firing cartridges, for the taking of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine, except that—
(i) An individual in possession of a valid trapping license may use a firearm that shoots rimfire cartridges to take wolves and wolverine;
(ii) Only a muzzle-loading rifle of .54-caliber or larger, or a .45-caliber muzzle-loading rifle with a 250-grain, or larger, elongated slug may be used to take brown bear, black bear, elk, moose, musk ox, and mountain goat;
(8) Using or being aided by use of a pit, fire, artificial light, radio communication, artificial salt lick, explosive, barbed arrow, bomb, smoke, chemical, conventional steel trap with a jaw spread over 9 inches, or conibear style trap with a jaw spread over 11 inches;
(9) Using a snare, except that an individual in possession of a valid hunting license may use nets and snares to take unclassified wildlife, ptarmigan, grouse, or hares; and, individuals in possession of a valid trapping license may use snares to take furbearers;
(10) Using a trap to take ungulates or bear;
(11) Using hooks to physically snag, impale, or otherwise take wildlife; however, hooks may be used as a trap drag;
(12) Using a crossbow to take ungulates, bear, wolf, or wolverine in any area restricted to hunting by bow and arrow only;
(13) Taking of ungulates, bear, wolf, or wolverine with a bow, unless the bow is capable of casting an inch-wide broadhead-tipped arrow at least 175 yards horizontally, and the arrow and broadhead together weigh at least 1 ounce (437.5 grains);
(14) Using bait for taking ungulates, bear, wolf, or wolverine; except, you may use bait to take wolves and wolverine with a trapping license, and you may use bait to take black bears with a hunting license as authorized in Unit-specific regulations at paragraphs (n)(1) through (26) of this section. Baiting of black bears is subject to the following restrictions:
(i) Before establishing a black bear bait station, you must register the site with ADF&G;
(ii) When using bait, you must clearly mark the site with a sign reading “black bear bait station” that also displays your hunting license number and ADF&G-assigned number;
(iii) You may use only biodegradable materials for bait; you may use only the head, bones, viscera, or skin of legally harvested fish and wildlife for bait;
(iv) You may not use bait within
(v) You may not use bait within 1 mile of a house or other permanent dwelling, or within 1 mile of a developed campground or developed recreational facility;
(vi) When using bait, you must remove litter and equipment from the bait station site when done hunting;
(vii) You may not give or receive payment for the use of a bait station, including barter or exchange of goods;
(viii) You may not have more than two bait stations with bait present at any one time;
(15) Taking swimming ungulates, bears, wolves, or wolverine;
(16) Taking or assisting in the taking of ungulates, bear, wolves, wolverine, or other furbearers before 3 a.m. following the day in which airborne travel occurred (except for flights in regularly scheduled commercial aircraft); however, this restriction does not apply to subsistence taking of deer, the setting of snares or traps, or the removal of furbearers from traps or snares;
(17) Taking a bear cub or a sow accompanied by cub(s).
(c) Wildlife taken in defense of life or property is not a subsistence use; wildlife so taken is subject to State regulations.
(d) The following methods and means of trapping furbearers for subsistence uses pursuant to the requirements of a trapping license are prohibited, in addition to the prohibitions listed at paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Disturbing or destroying a den, except that you may disturb a muskrat pushup or feeding house in the course of trapping;
(2) Disturbing or destroying any beaver house;
(3) Taking beaver by any means other than a steel trap or snare, except that you may use firearms in certain Units with established seasons as identified in Unit-specific regulations found in this subpart;
(4) Taking otter with a steel trap having a jaw spread of less than 5
(5) Using a net or fish trap (except a blackfish or fyke trap);
(6) Taking or assisting in the taking of furbearers by firearm before 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day on which airborne travel occurred; however, this does not apply to a trapper using a firearm to dispatch furbearers caught in a trap or snare.
(e)
(2) An animal taken under Federal or State regulations by any member of a community with an established community harvest limit for that species counts toward the community harvest limit for that species. Except for wildlife taken pursuant to §_.10(d)(5)(iii) or as otherwise provided for by this part, an animal taken as part of a community harvest limit counts toward every community member's harvest limit for that species taken under Federal or State of Alaska regulations.
(f)
(2) A brown/grizzly bear taken in a Unit or portion of a Unit having a harvest limit of “one brown/grizzly bear per year” counts against a “one brown/grizzly bear every four regulatory years” harvest limit in other Units. You may not take more than one brown/grizzly bear in a regulatory year.
(3) The Assistant Regional Director for Subsistence Management, FWS, is authorized to open, close, or adjust Federal subsistence lynx seasons and to set harvest and possession limits for lynx in Units 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20A, 20B, 20C east of the Teklanika River, 20D, and 20E, with a maximum season of November 1-February 28. This delegation may be exercised only when it is necessary to conserve lynx populations or to continue subsistence uses, only within guidelines listed within the ADF&G Lynx Harvest Management Strategy, and only after staff analysis of the potential action, consultation with the appropriate Regional Council Chairs, and Interagency Staff Committee concurrence.
(g)
(2) If the subsistence taking of an ungulate, except sheep, is restricted to one sex in the local area, you may not possess or transport the carcass of an animal taken in that area unless sufficient portions of the external sex organs remain attached to indicate conclusively the sex of the animal, except that in Units 1-5 antlers are also considered proof of sex for deer if the antlers are naturally attached to an entire carcass, with or without the viscera; and except in Units 11, 13, 19, 21, and 24, where you may possess either sufficient portions of the external sex organs (still attached to a portion of the carcass) or the head (with or without antlers attached; however, the antler stumps must remain attached) to indicate the sex of the harvested moose; however, this paragraph (g)(2) does not apply to the carcass of an ungulate that has been butchered and placed in storage or otherwise prepared for consumption upon arrival at the location where it is to be consumed.
(3) If a moose harvest limit requires an antlered bull, an antler size, or configuration restriction, you may not possess or transport the moose carcass or its parts unless both antlers accompany the carcass or its parts. If you possess a set of antlers with less than the required number of brow tines on one antler, you must leave the antlers naturally attached to the unbroken, uncut skull plate; however, this paragraph (g)(3) does not apply to a moose carcass or its parts that have been butchered and placed in storage or otherwise prepared for consumption after arrival at the place where it is to be stored or consumed.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(2) You may not possess or transport from Alaska the untanned skin or skull of a bear unless the skin and skull have been sealed by an authorized representative of ADF&G in accordance with State or Federal regulations, except that the skin and skull of a brown bear taken under a registration permit in Units 5, 9B, 9E, 17, 18, 19A and 19B downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage, 21D, 22, 23, 24, and 26A need not be sealed unless removed from the area.
(3) You must keep a bear skin and skull together until a representative of the ADF&G has removed a rudimentary premolar tooth from the skull and sealed both the skull and the skin; however, this provision does not apply to brown bears taken within Units 5, 9B, 9E, 17, 18, 19A and 19B downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage, 21D, 22, 23, 24, and 26A and which are not removed from the Unit.
(i) In areas where sealing is required by Federal regulations, you may not possess or transport the hide of a bear that does not have the penis sheath or vaginal orifice naturally attached to indicate conclusively the sex of the bear.
(ii) If the skin or skull of a bear taken in Units 9B, 17, 18, and 19A and 19B downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage is removed from the area, you must first have it sealed by an ADF&G representative in Bethel, Dillingham, or McGrath; at the time of sealing, the ADF&G representative must remove and retain the skin of the skull and front claws of the bear.
(iii) If you remove the skin or skull of a bear taken in Units 21D, 22, 23, 24, and 26A from the area or present it for commercial tanning within the area, you must first have it sealed by an ADF&G representative in Barrow, Galena, Nome, or Kotzebue; at the time of sealing, the ADF&G representative must remove and retain the skin of the skull and front claws of the bear.
(iv) If you remove the skin or skull of a bear taken in Unit 5 from the area, you must first have it sealed by an ADF&G representative in Yakutat.
(v) If you remove the skin or skull of a bear taken in Unit 9E from Unit 9, you must first have it sealed by an authorized sealing representative. At the time of sealing, the representative must
(4) You may not falsify any information required on the sealing certificate or temporary sealing form provided by the ADF&G in accordance with State regulations.
(k)
(1) In Unit 18, you must obtain an ADF&G seal for beaver skins only if they are to be sold or commercially tanned.
(2) In Unit 2, you must seal any wolf taken on or before the 30th day after the date of taking.
(l) If you take a species listed in paragraph (k) of this section but are unable to present the skin in person, you must complete and sign a temporary sealing form and ensure that the completed temporary sealing form and skin are presented to an authorized representative of ADF&G for sealing consistent with requirements listed in paragraph (k) of this section.
(m) You may take wildlife, outside of established season or harvest limits, for food in traditional religious ceremonies, that are part of a funerary or mortuary cycle, including memorial potlatches, under the following provisions:
(1) The harvest does not violate recognized principles of wildlife conservation and uses the methods and means allowable for the particular species published in the applicable Federal regulations. The appropriate Federal land manager will establish the number, species, sex, or location of harvest, if necessary, for conservation purposes. Other regulations relating to ceremonial harvest may be found in the unit-specific regulations in §_.26(n).
(2) No permit or harvest ticket is required for harvesting under this section; however, the harvester must be a Federally qualified subsistence user with customary and traditional use in the area where the harvesting will occur.
(3) In Units 1-26 (except for Koyukon/Gwich'in potlatch ceremonies in Units 20F, 21, 24, or 25):
(i) A tribal chief, village or tribal council president, or the chief's or president's designee for the village in which the religious/cultural ceremony will be held, or a Federally qualified subsistence user outside of a village or tribal-organized ceremony, must notify the nearest Federal land manager that a wildlife harvest will take place. The notification must include the species, harvest location, and number of animals expected to be taken.
(ii) Immediately after the wildlife is taken, the tribal chief, village or tribal council president or designee, or other Federally qualified subsistence user must create a list of the successful hunters and maintain these records, including the name of the decedent for whom the ceremony will be held. If requested, this information must be available to an authorized representative of the Federal land manager.
(iii) The tribal chief, village or tribal council president or designee, or other Federally qualified subsistence user outside of the village in which the religious/cultural ceremony will be held must report to the Federal land manager the harvest location, species, sex, and number of animals taken as soon as practicable, but not more than 15 days after the wildlife is taken.
(4) In Units 20F, 21, 24, and 25 (for Koyukon/Gwich'in potlatch ceremonies only):
(i) Taking wildlife outside of established season and harvest limits is authorized if it is for food for the traditional Koyukon/Gwich'in Potlatch Funerary or Mortuary ceremony and if it is consistent with conservation of healthy populations.
(ii) Immediately after the wildlife is taken, the tribal chief, village or tribal council president, or the chief's or president's designee for the village in which the religious ceremony will be held must create a list of the successful hunters and maintain these records. The list must be made available, after the harvest is completed, to a Federal land manager upon request.
(iii) As soon as practical, but not more than 15 days after the harvest, the tribal chief, village council president, or designee must notify the Federal land manager about the harvest location, species, sex, and number of animals taken.
(n)
(1)
(i) Unit 1A consists of all drainages south of the latitude of Lemesurier Point including all drainages into Behm Canal, excluding all drainages of Ernest Sound;
(ii) Unit 1B consists of all drainages between the latitude of Lemesurier Point and the latitude of Cape Fanshaw including all drainages of Ernest Sound and Farragut Bay, and including the islands east of the center lines of Frederick Sound, Dry Strait (between Sergief and Kadin Islands), Eastern Passage, Blake Channel (excluding Blake Island), Ernest Sound, and Seward Passage;
(iii) Unit 1C consists of that portion of Unit 1 draining into Stephens Passage and Lynn Canal north of Cape Fanshaw and south of the latitude of Eldred Rock including Berners Bay, Sullivan Island, and all mainland portions north of Chichagof Island and south of the latitude of Eldred Rock, excluding drainages into Farragut Bay;
(iv) Unit 1D consists of that portion of Unit 1 north of the latitude of Eldred Rock, excluding Sullivan Island and the drainages of Berners Bay;
(v) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) Public lands within Glacier Bay National Park are closed to all taking of wildlife for subsistence uses;
(B) Unit 1A—in the Hyder area, the Salmon River drainage downstream from the Riverside Mine, excluding the Thumb Creek drainage, is closed to the taking of bear;
(C) Unit 1B—the Anan Creek drainage within 1 mile of Anan Creek downstream from the mouth of Anan Lake, including the area within a 1-mile radius from the mouth of Anan Creek Lagoon, is closed to the taking of bear;
(D) Unit 1C:
(
(
(vi) You may not trap furbearers for subsistence uses in Unit 1C, Juneau area, on the following public lands:
(A) A strip within one-quarter mile of the mainland coast between the end of Thane Road and the end of Glacier Highway at Echo Cove;
(B) That area of the Mendenhall Valley bounded on the south by the Glacier Highway, on the west by the Mendenhall Loop Road and Montana Creek Road and Spur Road to Mendenhall Lake, on the north by Mendenhall Lake, and on the east by the Mendenhall Loop Road and Forest Service Glacier Spur Road to the Forest Service Visitor Center;
(C) That area within the U.S. Forest Service Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area;
(D) A strip within one-quarter mile of the following trails as designated on U.S. Geological Survey maps: Herbert Glacier Trail, Windfall Lake Trail, Peterson Lake Trail, Spaulding Meadows Trail (including the loop trail), Nugget Creek Trail, Outer Point Trail, Dan Moller Trail, Perseverance Trail, Granite Creek Trail, Mt. Roberts Trail and Nelson Water Supply Trail, Sheep Creek Trail, and Point Bishop Trail;
(vii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may hunt black bear with bait in Units 1A, 1B, and 1D between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(2)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) In the Petersburg vicinity, you may not take ungulates, bear, wolves, and wolverine along a strip one-fourth mile wide on each side of the Mitkof Highway from Milepost 0 to Crystal Lake campground;
(B) You may not take black bears in the Petersburg Creek drainage on Kupreanof Island;
(C) You may not hunt in the Blind Slough draining into Wrangell Narrows and a strip one-fourth mile wide on each side of Blind Slough, from the hunting closure markers at the southernmost portion of Blind Island to the hunting closure markers one mile south of the Blind Slough bridge.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled.
(4)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take brown bears in the Seymour Canal Closed Area (Admiralty Island) including all drainages into northwestern Seymour Canal between Staunch Point and the southernmost tip of the unnamed peninsula separating Swan Cove and King Salmon Bay including Swan and Windfall Islands;
(B) You may not take brown bears in the Salt Lake Closed Area (Admiralty Island) including all lands within one-fourth mile of Salt Lake above Klutchman Rock at the head of Mitchell Bay;
(C) You may not take brown bears in the Port Althorp Closed Area (Chichagof Island), that area within the Port Althorp watershed south of a line from Point Lucan to Salt Chuck Point (Trap Rock);
(D) You may not use any motorized land vehicle for brown bear hunting in the Northeast Chichagof Controlled Use Area (NECCUA) consisting of all portions of Unit 4 on Chichagof Island north of Tenakee Inlet and east of the drainage divide from the northwest point of Gull Cove to Port Frederick Portage, including all drainages into Port Frederick and Mud Bay.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may shoot ungulates from a boat. You may not shoot bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled;
(B) Five Federal registration permits will be issued by the Sitka or Hoonah District Ranger for the taking of brown bear for educational purposes associated with teaching customary and traditional subsistence harvest and use practices. Any bear taken under an educational permit does not count in an individual's one bear every four regulatory years limit.
(5)
(A) Unit 5A consists of all drainages east of Yakutat Bay, Disenchantment Bay, and the eastern edge of Hubbard Glacier, and includes the islands of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays;
(B) Unit 5B consists of the remainder of Unit 5.
(ii) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on public lands within Glacier Bay National Park.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may not shoot ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine from a boat, unless you are certified as disabled;
(C) You may hunt brown bear in Unit 5 with a Federal registration permit in lieu of a State metal locking tag; if you have obtained a Federal registration permit prior to hunting.
(6)
(A) Unit 6A consists of Gulf of Alaska drainages east of Palm Point near Katalla including Kanak, Wingham, and Kayak Islands;
(B) Unit 6B consists of Gulf of Alaska and Copper River Basin drainages west of Palm Point near Katalla, east of the west bank of the Copper River, and east of a line from Flag Point to Cottonwood Point;
(C) Unit 6C consists of drainages west of the west bank of the Copper River, and west of a line from Flag Point to Cottonwood Point, and drainages east of the east bank of Rude River and drainages into the eastern shore of Nelson Bay and Orca Inlet;
(D) Unit 6D consists of the remainder of Unit 6.
(ii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may take coyotes in Units 6B and 6C with the aid of artificial lights;
(C) One permit will be issued by the Cordova District Ranger to the Native Village of Eyak to take one bull moose from Federal lands in Units 6B or C for their annual Memorial/Sobriety Day potlatch;
(D) A Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) who is either blind, 65 years of age or older, at least 70 percent disabled, or temporarily disabled may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take any moose, deer, black bear, and beaver on his or her behalf in Unit 6, and goat in Unit 6D, unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients, but may have no more than one harvest limit in his or her possession at any one time;
(E) A hunter younger than 10 years old at the start of the hunt may not be issued a Federal subsistence permit to harvest black bear, deer, goat, moose, wolf, and wolverine;
(F) A hunter younger than 10 years old may harvest black bear, deer, goat, moose, wolf, and wolverine under the direct, immediate supervision of a licensed adult, at least 18 years old. The animal taken is counted against the adult's harvest limit. The adult is responsible for ensuring that all legal requirements are met.
(G) Up to five permits will be issued by the Cordova District Ranger to the Native Village of Chenega annually to harvest up to five deer total from Federal public lands in Unit 6D for their annual Old Chenega Memorial. Permits will have effective dates of July 1-June 30.
(H) Up to five permits will be issued by the Cordova District Ranger to the Tatitlek IRA Council annually to harvest up to five deer total from Federal public lands in Unit 6D for their annual Cultural Heritage Week. Permits will have effective dates of July 1-June 30.
(7)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Kenai Fjords National Park;
(B) You may not hunt in the Portage Glacier Closed Area in Unit 7, which consists of Portage Creek drainages between the Anchorage-Seward Railroad and Placer Creek in Bear Valley, Portage Lake, the mouth of Byron Creek, Glacier Creek, and Byron Glacier; however, you may hunt grouse, ptarmigan, hares, and squirrels with shotguns after September 1.
(C) You may not hunt moose in the Resurrection Creek Closed Area in Unit 7, which consists of the drainages of Resurrection Creek downstream from Rimrock and Highland Creeks including Palmer Creek.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15; except in the drainages of Resurrection Creek and its tributaries.
(B) [Reserved]
(8)
(i) If you have a trapping license, you may take beaver with a firearm in Unit 8 from Nov. 10-Apr. 30.
(ii) [Reserved]
(9)
(A) Unit 9A consists of that portion of Unit 9 draining into Shelikof Strait and Cook Inlet between the southern boundary of Unit 16 (Redoubt Creek) and the northern boundary of Katmai National Park and Preserve;
(B) Unit 9B consists of the Kvichak River drainage except those lands drained by the Kvichak River/Bay between the Alagnak River drainage and the Naknek River drainage;
(C) Unit 9C consists of the Alagnak (Branch) River drainage, the Naknek River drainage, lands drained by the Kvichak River/Bay between the Alagnak River drainage and the Naknek River drainage, and all land and water within Katmai National Park and Preserve;
(D) Unit 9D consists of all Alaska Peninsula drainages west of a line from the southernmost head of Port Moller to the head of American Bay, including the Shumagin Islands and other islands of Unit 9 west of the Shumagin Islands;
(E) Unit 9E consists of the remainder of Unit 9.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in Katmai National Park;
(B) You may not use motorized vehicles, except aircraft, boats, or snowmobiles used for hunting and transporting a hunter or harvested animal parts from Aug. 1-Nov. 30 in the Naknek Controlled Use Area, which includes all of Unit 9C within the Naknek River drainage upstream from and including the King Salmon Creek drainage; however, you may use a motorized vehicle on the Naknek-King Salmon, Lake Camp, and Rapids Camp roads and on the King Salmon Creek trail, and on frozen surfaces of the Naknek River and Big Creek.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 9B from April 1-May 31 and in the remainder of Unit 9 from April 1-30;
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag in Unit 9B, except that portion within the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting.
(C) In Unit 9B, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, residents of Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Port Alsworth, residents of that portion of the park resident zone in Unit 9B, and 13.440 permit holders, may hunt brown bear by Federal registration permit in lieu of a resident tag; ten permits will be available with at least one permit issued in each community; however, no more than five permits will be issued in a single community. The season will be closed when four females or ten bears have been taken, whichever occurs first. The permits will be issued and closure announcements made by the Superintendent Lake Clark National Park and Preserve;
(D) Residents of Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, and Port Alsworth may take up to a total of 10 bull moose in Unit 9B for ceremonial purposes, under the terms of a Federal registration permit from July 1-June 30. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of a local organization. This 10-moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted for potlatches by the State;
(E) For Units 9C and 9E only, a Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) of Units 9C and 9E may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user of Units 9C and 9E to take bull caribou on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report and turn over all meat to the recipient. There is no restriction on the number of possession limits the designated hunter may have in his/her possession at any one time;
(F) For Unit 9D, a Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take caribou on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but may have no more than four harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time;
(G) The communities of False Pass, King Cove, Cold Bay, Sand Point, and Nelson Lagoon annually may each take, from October 1-December 31 or May 10-25, one brown bear for ceremonial purposes, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. A permit will be issued to an individual only at the request of a local organization. The brown bear may be taken from either Unit 9D or Unit 10 (Unimak Island) only;
(H) You may hunt brown bear in Unit 9E with a Federal registration permit in lieu of a State locking tag if you have obtained a Federal registration permit prior to hunting.
(10)
(ii) You may not take any wildlife species for subsistence uses on Otter Island in the Pribilof Islands.
(iii) In Unit 10—Unimak Island only, a Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to
(iv) The communities of False Pass, King Cove, Cold Bay, Sand Point, and Nelson Lagoon annually may each take, from October 1-December 31 or May 10-25, one brown bear for ceremonial purposes, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. A permit will be issued to an individual only at the request of a local organization. The brown bear may be taken from either Unit 9D or Unit 10 (Unimak Island) only.
(11)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) One moose without calf may be taken from June 20-July 31 in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve in Unit 11 or 12 for the Batzulnetas Culture Camp. Two hunters from either Chistochina or Mentasta Village may be designated by the Mt. Sanford Tribal Consortium to receive the Federal subsistence harvest permit. The permit may be obtained from a Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve office.
(C) The Assistant Regional Director for Subsistence Management, FWS, is authorized to align the Federal subsistence wolverine trapping season with the Federal subsistence lynx seasons in Unit 11.
(ii) A joint permit may be issued to a pair of a minor and an elder to hunt sheep during the Sept. 21-Oct. 20 hunt. The following conditions apply:
(A) The permittee must be a minor aged 8 to 15 years old and an accompanying adult 60 years of age or older;
(B) Both the elder and the minor must be Federally qualified subsistence users with a positive customary and traditional use determination for the area they want to hunt;
(C) The minor must hunt under the direct immediate supervision of the accompanying adult, who is responsible for ensuring that all legal requirements are met;
(D) Only one animal may be harvested with this permit. The sheep harvested will count against the harvest limits of both the minor and accompanying adult.
(12)
(i) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30; you may use bait to hunt wolves on FWS and BLM lands;
(B) You may not use a steel trap, or a snare using cable smaller than
(C) One moose without calf may be taken from June 20-July 31 in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve in Unit 11 or 12 for the Batzulnetas Culture Camp. Two hunters from either Chistochina or Mentasta Village may be designated by the Mt. Sanford Tribal Consortium to receive the Federal subsistence harvest permit. The permit may be obtained from a Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve office.
(ii) A joint permit may be issued to a pair of a minor and an elder to hunt sheep during the Sept. 21-Oct. 20 hunt. The following conditions apply:
(A) The permittees must be a minor aged 8 to 15 years old and an accompanying adult 60 years of age or older;
(B) Both the elder and the minor must be Federally qualified subsistence users with a positive customary and traditional use determination for the area they want to hunt;
(C) The minor must hunt under the direct immediate supervision of the accompanying adult, who is responsible for ensuring that all legal requirements are met;
(D) Only one animal may be harvested with this permit. The sheep harvested will count against the harvest limits of both the minor and accompanying adult.
(13)
(A) Unit 13A consists of that portion of Unit 13 bounded by a line beginning at the Chickaloon River bridge at Mile 77.7 on the Glenn Highway, then along the Glenn Highway to its junction with the Richardson Highway, then south along the Richardson Highway to the foot of Simpson Hill at Mile 111.5, then east to the east bank of the Copper River, then northerly along the east bank of the Copper River to its junction with the Gulkana River, then northerly along the west bank of the Gulkana River to its junction with the West Fork of the Gulkana River, then westerly along the west bank of the West Fork of the Gulkana River to its source, an unnamed lake, then across the divide into the Tyone River drainage, down an unnamed stream into the Tyone River, then down the Tyone River to the Susitna River, then down the southern bank of the Susitna River to the mouth of Kosina Creek, then up Kosina Creek to its headwaters, then across the divide and down Aspen Creek to the Talkeetna River, then southerly along the boundary of Unit 13 to the Chickaloon River bridge, the point of beginning;
(B) Unit 13B consists of that portion of Unit 13 bounded by a line beginning at the confluence of the Copper River and the Gulkana River, then up the east bank of the Copper River to the Gakona River, then up the Gakona River and Gakona Glacier to the boundary of Unit 13, then westerly along the boundary of Unit 13 to the Susitna Glacier, then southerly along the west bank of the Susitna Glacier and the Susitna River to the Tyone River, then up the Tyone River and across the divide to the headwaters of the West Fork of the Gulkana River, then down the West Fork of the Gulkana River to the confluence of the Gulkana River and the Copper River, the point of beginning;
(C) Unit 13C consists of that portion of Unit 13 east of the Gakona River and Gakona Glacier;
(D) Unit 13D consists of that portion of Unit 13 south of Unit 13A;
(E) Unit 13E consists of the remainder of Unit 13.
(ii) Within the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on lands within Mount McKinley National Park as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (m)(13) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980;
(B) You may not use motorized vehicles or pack animals for hunting from Aug. 5-25 in the Delta Controlled Use Area, the boundary of which is defined as: a line beginning at the confluence of Miller Creek and the Delta River, then west to vertical angle benchmark Miller, then west to include all drainages of Augustana Creek and
(C) Except for access and transportation of harvested wildlife on Sourdough and Haggard Creeks, Middle Fork trails, or other trails designated by the Board, you may not use motorized vehicles for subsistence hunting in the Sourdough Controlled Use Area. The Sourdough Controlled Use Area consists of that portion of Unit 13B bounded by a line beginning at the confluence of Sourdough Creek and the Gulkana River, then northerly along Sourdough Creek to the Richardson Highway at approximately Mile 148, then northerly along the Richardson Highway to the Middle Fork Trail at approximately Mile 170, then westerly along the trail to the Gulkana River, then southerly along the east bank of the Gulkana River to its confluence with Sourdough Creek, the point of beginning;
(D) You may not use any motorized vehicle or pack animal for hunting, including the transportation of hunters, their hunting gear, and/or parts of game from July 26-September 30 in the Tonsina Controlled Use Area. The Tonsina Controlled Use Area consists of that portion of Unit 13D bounded on the west by the Richardson Highway from the Tiekel River to the Tonsina River at Tonsina, on the north along the south bank of the Tonsina River to where the Edgerton Highway crosses the Tonsina River, then along the Edgerton Highway to Chitina, on the east by the Copper River from Chitina to the Tiekel River, and on the south by the north bank of the Tiekel River.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) Upon written request by the Camp Director to the Glennallen Field Office, 2 caribou, sex to be determined by the Glennallen Field Office Manager of the BLM, may be taken from Aug. 10-Sept. 30 or Oct. 21-Mar. 31 by Federal registration permit for the Hudson Lake Residential Treatment Camp. Additionally, 1 bull moose may be taken Aug. 1-Sept. 20. The animals may be taken by any Federally qualified hunter designated by the Camp Director. The hunter must have in his/her possession the permit and a designated hunter permit during all periods that are being hunted;
(C) Upon written request from the Ahtna Heritage Foundation to the Glennallen Field Office, either 1 bull moose or 2 caribou, sex to be determined by the Glennallen Field Office Manager of the Bureau of Land Management, may be taken from Aug. 1-Sept. 20 for 1 moose or Aug. 10-Sept. 20 for 2 caribou by Federal registration permit for the Ahtna Heritage Foundation's culture camp. The permit will expire on September 20 or when the camp closes, whichever comes first. No combination of caribou and moose is allowed. The animals may be taken by any Federally qualified hunter designated by the Camp Director. The hunter must have in his/her possession the permit and a designated hunter permit during all periods that are being hunted.
(14)
(A) Unit 14A consists of drainages in Unit 14 bounded on the west by the east bank of the Susitna River, on the north by the north bank of Willow Creek and Peters Creek to its headwaters, then east along the hydrologic divide separating the Susitna River and Knik Arm drainages to the outlet creek at lake 4408, on the east by the eastern boundary of Unit 14, and on the south by Cook Inlet, Knik Arm, the south bank of the Knik River from its mouth to its junction with Knik Glacier, across the face of Knik Glacier and along the north side of Knik Glacier to the Unit 6 boundary;
(B) Unit 14B consists of that portion of Unit 14 north of Unit 14A;
(C) Unit 14C consists of that portion of Unit 14 south of Unit 14A.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base Management Areas, consisting of the Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Military Reservations;
(B) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Anchorage Management Area, consisting of all drainages south of Elmendorf and Fort Richardson military reservations and north of and including Rainbow Creek.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(15)
(A) Unit 15A consists of that portion of Unit 15 north of the north bank of the Kenai River and the north shore of Skilak Lake;
(B) Unit 15B consists of that portion of Unit 15 south of the north bank of the Kenai River and the north shore of Skilak Lake, and north of the north bank of the Kasilof River, the north shore of Tustumena Lake, Glacier Creek, and Tustumena Glacier;
(C) Unit 15C consists of the remainder of Unit 15.
(ii) You may not take wildlife, except for grouse, ptarmigan, and hares that may be taken only from October 1-March 1 by bow and arrow only, in the Skilak Loop Management Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 15A bounded by a line beginning at the easternmost junction of the Sterling Highway and the Skilak Loop (milepost 76.3), then due south to the south bank of the Kenai River, then southerly along the south bank of the Kenai River to its confluence with Skilak Lake, then westerly along the north shore of Skilak Lake to Lower Skilak Lake Campground,
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may not trap furbearers for subsistence in the Skilak Loop Wildlife Management Area;
(C) You may not trap marten in that portion of Unit 15B east of the Kenai River, Skilak Lake, Skilak River, and Skilak Glacier;
(D) You may not take red fox in Unit 15 by any means other than a steel trap or snare.
(16)
(A) Unit 16A consists of that portion of Unit 16 east of the east bank of the Yentna River from its mouth upstream to the Kahiltna River, east of the east bank of the Kahiltna River, and east of the Kahiltna Glacier;
(B) Unit 16B consists of the remainder of Unit 16.
(ii) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses in the Mount McKinley National Park, as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (m)(16) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15.
(B) [Reserved]
(17)
(A) Unit 17A consists of the drainages between Cape Newenham and Cape Constantine, and Hagemeister Island and the Walrus Islands;
(B) Unit 17B consists of the Nushagak River drainage upstream from and including the Mulchatna River drainage and the Wood River drainage upstream from the outlet of Lake Beverley;
(C) Unit 17C consists of the remainder of Unit 17.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public lands:
(A) Except for aircraft and boats and in legal hunting camps, you may not use any motorized vehicle for hunting ungulates, bears, wolves, and wolverine, including transportation of hunters and parts of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine in the Upper Mulchatna Controlled Use Area consisting of Unit 17B, from Aug. 1-Nov. 1.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 15;
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting;
(C) [Reserved]
(D) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 17 from April 15-May 31. You may not take beaver with a firearm under a trapping license on National Park Service lands.
(18)
(ii) In the Kalskag Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 18 bounded by a line from Lower Kalskag on the Kuskokwim River, northwesterly to Russian Mission on the Yukon River, then east along the north bank of the Yukon River to the old site of Paimiut, then back to Lower Kalskag, you are not allowed to use aircraft for hunting any ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine, including the transportation of any hunter and ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine part; however, this does not apply to transportation of a hunter or ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the Controlled Use Area or between a publicly owned airport within the Area and points outside the Area.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 18 from Apr. 1-Jun. 10;
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting;
(C) You may take caribou from a boat moving under power in Unit 18.
(19)
(A) Unit 19A consists of the Kuskokwim River drainage downstream from and including the Moose Creek drainage on the north bank and downstream from and including the Stony River drainage on the south bank, excluding Unit 19B;
(B) Unit 19B consists of the Aniak River drainage upstream from and including the Salmon River drainage, the Holitna River drainage upstream from and including the Bakbuk Creek drainage, that area south of a line from the mouth of Bakbuk Creek to the radar dome at Sparrevohn Air Force Base, including the Hoholitna River drainage upstream from that line, and the Stony River drainage upstream from and including the Can Creek drainage;
(C) Unit 19C consists of that portion of Unit 19 south and east of a line from Benchmark M#1.26 (approximately 1.26 miles south of the northwest corner of the original Mt. McKinley National Park boundary) to the peak of Lone Mountain, then due west to Big River, including the Big River drainage upstream from that line, and including the Swift River drainage upstream from and including the North Fork drainage;
(D) Unit 19D consists of the remainder of Unit 19.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on lands within Mount McKinley National Park as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (m)(19) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980;
(B) In the Upper Kuskokwim Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 19D upstream from the mouth of the Selatna River, but excluding the Selatna and Black River drainages, to a line extending from Dyckman Mountain on the northern Unit 19D boundary southeast to the 1,610 foot crest of Munsatli Ridge, then south along Munsatli Ridge to the 2,981 foot peak of Telida Mountain, then northeast to the intersection of the western boundary of Denali National Preserve with the Minchumina-Telida winter trail, then south along the western boundary of Denali National Preserve to the southern boundary of Unit 19D, you may not use aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or moose part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the Controlled Use Area, or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30;
(B) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag in those portions of 19A and 19B downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting.
(20)
(A) Unit 20A consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded on the south by the Unit 13 boundary, bounded on the east by the west bank of the Delta River, bounded on the north by the north bank of the Tanana River from its confluence with the Delta River downstream to its confluence with the Nenana River, and bounded on the west by the east bank of the Nenana River;
(B) Unit 20B consists of drainages into the north bank of the Tanana River from and including Hot Springs Slough upstream to and including the Banner Creek drainage;
(C) Unit 20C consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded on the east by the east bank of the Nenana River and on the north by the north bank of the Tanana River downstream from the Nenana River;
(D) Unit 20D consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded on the east by the east bank of the Robertson River and on the west by the west bank of the Delta River, and drainages into the north bank of the Tanana River from its confluence with the Robertson River downstream to, but excluding, the Banner Creek drainage;
(E) Unit 20E consists of drainages into the south bank of the Yukon River upstream from and including the Charley River drainage, and the Ladue River drainage;
(F) Unit 20F consists of the remainder of Unit 20.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not take wildlife for subsistence uses on lands within Mount McKinley National Park as it existed prior to December 2, 1980. Subsistence uses as authorized by this paragraph (n)(20) are permitted in Denali National Preserve and lands added to Denali National Park on December 2, 1980;
(B) You may not use motorized vehicles or pack animals for hunting from Aug. 5-25 in the Delta Controlled Use Area, the boundary of which is defined as: A line beginning at the confluence of Miller Creek and the Delta River, then west to vertical angle benchmark Miller, then west to include all drainages of Augustana Creek and Black Rapids Glacier, then north and east to include all drainages of McGinnis Creek to its confluence with the Delta River, then east in a straight line across the Delta River to Mile 236.7 of the Richardson Highway, then north along the Richardson Highway to its junction with the Alaska Highway, then east along the Alaska Highway to the west bank of the Johnson River, then south along the west bank of the Johnson River and Johnson Glacier to the head of the Canwell Glacier, then west along the north bank of the Canwell Glacier and Miller Creek to the Delta River;
(C) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats, in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife;
(D) You may not use any motorized vehicle for hunting from August 5-September 20 in the Glacier Mountain Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 20E bounded by a line beginning at Mile 140 of the Taylor Highway, then north along the highway to Eagle, then west along the cat trail from Eagle to Crooked Creek, then from Crooked Creek southwest along the west bank of Mogul Creek to its headwaters on North Peak, then west across North Peak to the headwaters of Independence Creek, then southwest along the west bank of Independence Creek to its confluence with the North Fork of the Fortymile River, then easterly along the south bank of the North Fork of the Fortymile River to its confluence with Champion Creek, then across the North Fork of the Fortymile River to the south bank of Champion Creek and easterly along the south bank of Champion Creek to its confluence with Little Champion Creek, then northeast along the east bank of Little Champion Creek to its headwaters, then northeasterly in a direct line to Mile 140 on the Taylor Highway; however, this does not prohibit motorized access via, or transportation of harvested wildlife on, the Taylor Highway or any airport;
(E) You may by permit hunt moose on the Minto Flats Management Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 20 bounded by the Elliot Highway beginning at Mile 118, then northeasterly to Mile 96, then east to the Tolovana Hotsprings Dome, then east to the Winter Cat Trail, then along the Cat Trail south to the Old Telegraph Trail at Dunbar, then westerly along the trail to a point where it joins the Tanana River 3 miles above Old Minto, then along the north bank of the Tanana River (including all channels and sloughs except Swan Neck Slough), to the confluence of the Tanana and Tolovana Rivers and then northerly to the point of beginning;
(F) You may only hunt moose by bow and arrow in the Fairbanks Management Area. The Area consists of that portion of Unit 20B bounded by a line from the confluence of Rosie Creek and the Tanana River, northerly along Rosie Creek to Isberg Road, then northeasterly on Isberg Road to Cripple Creek Road, then northeasterly on Cripple Creek Road to the Parks Highway, then north on the Parks Highway to Alder Creek, then westerly to the middle fork of Rosie Creek through section 26 to the Parks Highway, then east along the Parks Highway to Alder Creek, then upstream along Alder Creek to its confluence with Emma Creek, then upstream along Emma Creek to its headwaters, then northerly along the hydrographic divide between Goldstream Creek drainages and Cripple Creek drainages to the summit of Ester Dome, then down Sheep Creek to its confluence with Goldstream Creek, then easterly along Goldstream Creek to Sheep Creek Road, then north on Sheep Creek Road to Murphy Dome Road, then west on Murphy Dome Road to Old Murphy Dome Road, then east on Old Murphy Dome Road to the Elliot Highway, then south on the Elliot Highway to Goldstream Creek, then easterly along Goldstream Creek to its confluence with First Chance Creek, Davidson Ditch, then southeasterly along the Davidson Ditch to its confluence with the tributary to Goldstream Creek in Section 29, then downstream along the tributary to its confluence with Goldstream Creek, then in a straight line to First Chance Creek, then up First Chance Creek to Tungsten Hill, then southerly along Steele Creek to its confluence with Ruby Creek, then upstream along Ruby Creek to Esro Road, then south on Esro Road to Chena Hot Springs Road, then east on Chena Hot Springs Road to Nordale Road, then south on Nordale Road to the Chena River, to its intersection with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right of way, then southeasterly along the easterly edge of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right of way to the Chena River, then along the north bank of the Chena River to the Moose Creek dike, then southerly along the Moose Creek dike to its intersection with the Tanana River, and then westerly along the north bank of the Tanana River to the point of beginning.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear from April 15-June 30; you may use bait to hunt wolves on FWS and BLM lands;
(B) You may not use a steel trap, or a snare using cable smaller than
(C) Residents of Units 20 and 21 may take up to three moose per regulatory year for the celebration known as the Nuchalawoyya Potlatch, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals at
(21)
(A) Unit 21A consists of the Innoko River drainage upstream from and including the Iditarod River drainage;
(B) Unit 21B consists of the Yukon River drainage upstream from Ruby and east of the Ruby-Poorman Road, downstream from and excluding the Tozitna River and Tanana River drainages, and excluding the Melozitna River drainage upstream from Grayling Creek;
(C) Unit 21C consists of the Melozitna River drainage upstream from Grayling Creek, and the Dulbi River drainage upstream from and including the Cottonwood Creek drainage;
(D) Unit 21D consists of the Yukon River drainage from and including the Blackburn Creek drainage upstream to Ruby, including the area west of the Ruby-Poorman Road, excluding the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from the Dulbi River drainage, and excluding the Dulbi River drainage upstream from Cottonwood Creek;
(E) Unit 21E consists of the Yukon River drainage from Paimiut upstream to, but not including, the Blackburn Creek drainage, and the Innoko River drainage downstream from the Iditarod River drainage.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) The Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, which consists of those portions of Unit 21 and 24 bounded by a line from the north bank of the Yukon River at Koyukuk at 64°52.58′ N. lat., 157°43.10′ W. long., then northerly to the confluences of the Honhosa and Kateel Rivers at 65°28.42′ N. lat., 157°44.89′ W. long., then northeasterly to the confluences of Billy Hawk Creek and the Huslia River (65°57′ N. lat., 156°41′ W. long.) at 65°56.66′ N. lat., 156°40.81′ W. long., then easterly to the confluence of the forks of the Dakli River at 66°02.56′ N. lat., 156°12.71′ W. long., then easterly to the confluence of McLanes Creek and the Hogatza River at 66°00.31′ N. lat., 155°18.57′ W. long., then southwesterly to the crest of Hochandochtla Mountain at 65°31.87′ N. lat., 154°52.18′ W. long., then southwest to the mouth of Cottonwood Creek at 65°13.00′ N. lat., 156°06.43′ W. long., then southwest to Bishop Rock (Yistletaw) at 64°49.35′ N. lat., 157°21.73′ W. long., then westerly along the north bank of the Yukon River (including Koyukuk Island) to the point of beginning, is closed during moose hunting seasons to the use of aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or moose part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the controlled use area or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area; all hunters on the Koyukuk River passing the ADF&G-operated check station at Ella's Cabin (15 miles upstream from the Yukon on the Koyukuk River) are required to stop and report to ADF&G personnel at the check station;
(B) The Paradise Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 21 bounded by a line beginning at the old village of Paimiut, then north along the west bank of the Yukon River to Paradise, then northwest to the mouth of Stanstrom Creek on the Bonasila River, then northeast to the mouth of the Anvik River, then along the west bank of the Yukon River to the lower end of Eagle Island (approximately 45 miles north of Grayling), then to the mouth of the Iditarod River, then down the east bank of the Innoko River to its confluence with Paimiut Slough, then south along the east bank of Paimiut Slough to its mouth, and then to the old village of Paimiut, is closed during moose hunting seasons to the use of aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or part of moose; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or part of moose by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the Controlled Use Area or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area.
(iii) In Unit 21D, you may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. Aircraft may not be used in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears; however, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30; and in the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, you may also use bait to hunt black bear between September 1 and September 25;
(B) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 21(E) from Nov. 1-June 10;
(C) The residents of Units 20 and 21 may take up to three moose per regulatory year for the celebration known as the Nuchalawoyya Potlatch, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of the Native Village of Tanana. This three moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted by the State;
(D) The residents of Unit 21 may take up to three moose per regulatory year for the celebration known as the Kaltag/Nulato Stickdance, under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of the Native Village of Kaltag or Nulato. This three moose limit is not cumulative with that permitted by the State.
(22)
(A) Unit 22A consists of Norton Sound drainages from, but excluding, the Pastolik River drainage to, and including, the Ungalik River drainage, and Stuart and Besboro Islands;
(B) Unit 22B consists of Norton Sound drainages from, but excluding, the Ungalik River drainage to, and including, the Topkok Creek drainage;
(C) Unit 22C consists of Norton Sound and Bering Sea drainages from, but excluding, the Topkok Creek drainage to, and including, the Tisuk River drainage, and King and Sledge Islands;
(D) Unit 22D consists of that portion of Unit 22 draining into the Bering Sea north of, but not including, the Tisuk River to and including Cape York and St. Lawrence Island;
(E) Unit 22E consists of Bering Sea, Bering Strait, Chukchi Sea, and Kotzebue Sound drainages from Cape York to, but excluding, the Goodhope River drainage, and including Little Diomede Island and Fairway Rock.
(ii) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. Aircraft may not be used in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears; however, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) If you have a trapping license, you may use a firearm to take beaver in Unit 22 during the established seasons;
(B) Coyote, incidentally taken with a trap or snare intended for red fox or wolf, may be used for subsistence purposes;
(C) A snowmachine may be used to position a hunter to select individual caribou for harvest provided that the animals are not shot from a moving snowmachine;
(D) The taking of one bull moose and one musk ox by the community of Wales is allowed for the celebration of the Kingikmiut Dance Festival under the terms of a Federal registration permit. Permits will be issued to individuals only at the request of the Native Village of Wales. The harvest may only occur between January 1 and March 15 in Unit 22E for a bull moose and in Unit 22E for a musk ox. The harvest will count against any established quota for the area;
(E) A Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take musk oxen on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must get a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients in the course of a season, but have no more than two harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time, except in Unit 22E where a resident of Wales or Shishmaref acting as a designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients, but have no more than four harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(23)
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use aircraft in any manner either for hunting of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine, or for transportation of hunters or harvested species in the Noatak Controlled Use Area for the period August 25-September 15. The Area consists of that portion of Unit 23 in a corridor extending five miles on either side of the Noatak River beginning at the mouth of the Noatak River, and extending upstream to the mouth of Sapun Creek. This closure does not apply to the transportation of hunters or parts of ungulates, bear, wolves, or wolverine by regularly scheduled flights to communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled air service.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. Aircraft may not be used in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears; however, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may take caribou from a boat moving under power in Unit 23;
(B) In addition to other restrictions on method of take found in this § _.26, you may also take swimming caribou with a firearm using rimfire cartridges;
(C) If you have a trapping license, you may take beaver with a firearm in all of Unit 23 from Nov. 1-Jun. 10;
(D) For the Baird and DeLong Mountain sheep hunts—A Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take sheep on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for only one recipient in the course of a season and may have both his and the recipients' harvest limits in his/her possession at the same time;
(E) A snowmachine may be used to position a hunter to select individual caribou for harvest provided that the animals are not shot from a moving snowmachine;
(F) A Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take musk oxen on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must get a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients, but have no more than two harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time.
(24)
(A) Unit 24A consists of the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from but not including the Harriet Creek and North Fork Koyukuk River drainages, to the South Fork of the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from Squaw Creek, the Jim River Drainage, the Fish Creek drainage upstream from and including the Bonanza Creek drainage, to the 1,410 ft. peak of the hydrologic divide with the northern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna River at N. Lat.66°33.303′ W. Long. 151°03.637′ and following the unnamed northern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna Creek to the confluence of the southern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna River at N. Lat 66°27.090′ W. Long. 151°23.841′, 4.2 miles SSW (194 degrees true) of Clawanmenka Lake and following the unnamed southern fork of the Kanuti Chalatna Creek to the hydrologic divide with the Kanuti River drainage at N. Lat.66°19.789′ W. Long. 151°10.102′, 3.0 miles ENE (79 degrees true) from the 2,055 ft. peak on that divide, and the Kanuti River drainage upstream from the confluence of an unnamed creek at N. Lat. 66°13.050′ W. Long. 151°05.864′, 0.9 miles SSE (155 degrees true) of a 1,980 ft. peak on that divide, and following that unnamed creek to the Unit 24 boundary on the hydrologic divide to the Ray River drainage at N. Lat. 66°03.827′ W. Long. 150°49.988′ at the 2,920 ft. peak of that divide;
(B) Unit 24B consists of the Koyukuk River Drainage upstream from Dog Island to the Subunit 24A boundary;
(C) Unit 24C consists of the Hogatza River Drainage, the Koyukuk River Drainage upstream from Batza River on the north side of the Koyukuk River and upstream from and including the Indian River Drainage on the south side of the Koyukuk River to the Subunit 24B boundary;
(D) Unit 24D consists of the remainder of Unit 24.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles, or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats, in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, and Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife;
(B) You may not use aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part in the Kanuti Controlled Use Area, which consists of that portion of Unit 24 bounded by a line from the Bettles Field VOR to the east side of Fish Creek Lake, to Old Dummy Lake, to the south end of Lake Todatonten (including all waters of these lakes), to the northernmost headwaters of Siruk Creek, to the highest peak of Double Point Mountain, then back to the Bettles Field VOR; however, this does not apply to transportation of a moose hunter or moose part by aircraft between publicly owned airports in the controlled use area or between a publicly owned airport within the area and points outside the area;
(C) You may not use aircraft for hunting moose, including transportation of any moose hunter or moose part in the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, which consists of those portions of Unit 21s and 24 bounded by a line from the north bank of the Yukon River at
(iii) You may hunt brown bear by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. You may not use aircraft in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears, or parts of bears. However, this prohibition does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30; and in the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, you may also use bait to hunt black bear between September 1 and September 25;
(B) Arctic fox, incidentally taken with a trap or snare intended for red fox, may be used for subsistence purposes.
(25)
(A) Unit 25A consists of the Hodzana River drainage upstream from the Narrows, the Chandalar River drainage upstream from and including the East Fork drainage, the Christian River drainage upstream from Christian, the Sheenjek River drainage upstream from and including the Thluichohnjik Creek, the Coleen River drainage, and the Old Crow River drainage;
(B) Unit 25B consists of the Little Black River drainage upstream from but not including the Big Creek drainage, the Black River drainage upstream from and including the Salmon Fork drainage, the Porcupine River drainage upstream from the confluence of the Coleen and Porcupine Rivers, and drainages into the north bank of the Yukon River upstream from Circle, including the islands in the Yukon River;
(C) Unit 25C consists of drainages into the south bank of the Yukon River upstream from Circle to the Subunit 20E boundary, the Birch Creek drainage upstream from the Steese Highway bridge (milepost 147), the Preacher Creek drainage upstream from and including the Rock Creek drainage, and the Beaver Creek drainage upstream from and including the Moose Creek drainage;
(D) Unit 25D consists of the remainder of Unit 25.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife;
(B) The Arctic Village Sheep Management Area consists of that portion of Unit 25A north and west of Arctic Village, which is bounded on the east by the East Fork Chandalar River beginning at the confluence of Red Sheep Creek and proceeding southwesterly downstream past Arctic Village to the confluence with Crow Nest Creek, continuing up Crow Nest Creek, through Portage Lake, to its confluence with the Junjik River; then down the Junjik River past Timber Lake and a larger tributary, to a major, unnamed tributary, northwesterly, for approximately 6 miles where the stream forks into 2 roughly equal drainages; the boundary follows the easternmost fork, proceeding almost due north to the headwaters and intersects the Continental Divide; the boundary then follows the Continental Divide easterly, through Carter Pass, then easterly and northeasterly approximately 62 miles along the divide to the head waters of the most northerly tributary of Red Sheep Creek then follows southerly along the divide designating the eastern extreme of the Red Sheep Creek drainage then to the confluence of Red Sheep Creek and the East Fork Chandalar River.
(iii) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may use bait to hunt black bear between April 15 and June 30 and between August 1 and September 25; you may use bait to hunt wolves on FWS and BLM lands;
(B) You may take caribou and moose from a boat moving under power in Unit 25;
(C) The taking of bull moose outside the seasons provided in this part for food in memorial potlatches and traditional cultural events is authorized in Unit 25D west provided that:
(
(
(
(
(26)
(A) Unit 26A consists of that portion of Unit 26 lying west of the Itkillik River drainage and west of the east bank of the Colville River between the mouth of the Itkillik River and the Arctic Ocean;
(B) Unit 26B consists of that portion of Unit 26 east of Unit 26A, west of the west bank of the Canning River and west of the west bank of the Marsh Fork of the Canning River;
(C) Unit 26C consists of the remainder of Unit 26.
(ii) In the following areas, the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses is prohibited or restricted on public land:
(A) You may not use aircraft in any manner for moose hunting, including transportation of moose hunters or parts of moose during the periods July 1-Sept. 14 and Jan. 1-Mar. 31 in Unit 26A; however, this does not apply to transportation of moose hunters, their gear, or moose parts by aircraft between publicly owned airports;
(B) You may not use firearms, snowmobiles, licensed highway vehicles or motorized vehicles, except aircraft and boats, in the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which consists of those portions of Units 20, 24, 25, and 26 extending 5 miles from each side of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River to milepost 300 of the Dalton Highway, except as follows: Residents living within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area may use snowmobiles only for the subsistence taking of wildlife. You may use licensed highway vehicles only on designated roads within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area. The residents of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Evansville, Stevens Village, and residents living within the Corridor may use firearms within the Corridor only for subsistence taking of wildlife.
(iii) You may hunt brown bear in Unit 26A by State registration permit in lieu of a resident tag if you have obtained a State registration permit prior to hunting. You may not use aircraft in any manner for brown bear hunting under the authority of a brown bear State registration permit, including transportation of hunters, bears or parts of bears. However, this does not apply to transportation of bear hunters or bear parts by regularly scheduled flights to and between communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled service to this area, nor does it apply to transportation of aircraft to or between publicly owned airports.
(iv) Unit-specific regulations:
(A) You may take caribou from a boat moving under power in Unit 26;
(B) In addition to other restrictions on method of take found in this § __.26, you may also take swimming caribou with a firearm using rimfire cartridges;
(C) In Kaktovik, a Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take sheep or musk ox on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for any number of recipients but may have no more than two harvest limits in his/her possession at any one time;
(D) For the DeLong Mountain sheep hunts—A Federally qualified subsistence user (recipient) may designate another Federally qualified subsistence user to take sheep on his or her behalf unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. The designated hunter must obtain a designated hunter permit and must return a completed harvest report. The designated hunter may hunt for only one recipient in the course of a season and may have both his and the recipient's harvest limits in his/her possession at the same time.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; fishing season notification.
This final rule implements the management measures described in Final Amendment 2 to the Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). These management measures are designed to rebuild overfished species and prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks. These measures include, but are not limited to, reductions in the commercial quotas, adjustments to commercial retention limits, establishment of a shark research fishery, a requirement for commercial vessels to maintain all fins on the shark carcasses through offloading, the establishment of two regional quotas for non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), the establishment of one annual season for commercial shark fishing instead of trimesters, changes in reporting requirements for dealers (including swordfish and tuna dealers), the establishment of additional time/area closures for bottom longline (BLL) fisheries, and changes to the authorized species for recreational fisheries. This rule also establishes the 2008 commercial quota for all Atlantic shark species groups. These changes affect all commercial and recreational shark fishermen and shark dealers on the Atlantic Coast.
This rule is effective on July 24, 2008.
For copies of Final Amendment 2 to the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, the Small Entity Compliance Guide, or other related documents, please write to the Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or call at (301) 713-2347 or fax to (301)713-1917. Copies are also available on the HMS website at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the Highly Migratory Species Management Division at (301) 713-2347 or by fax to (301) 713-1917 and by e-mail to
Michael Clark, Karyl Brewster-Geisz, or LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347 or by fax at 301-713-1917; or Jackie Wilson at 240-338-3936.
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
NMFS announced its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65086), and held seven scoping meetings in January 2007 (72 FR 123, January 3, 2007). As described in the notice of intent, based on the results of the 2005 Canadian porbeagle shark stock assessment, the 2006 dusky shark stock assessment, and the 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment, NMFS declared the current status of the LCS complex as unknown, sandbar sharks as overfished with overfishing occurring, the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark population as not overfished with overfishing not occurring, the Atlantic blacktip shark population as unknown, the dusky shark as overfished with overfishing occurring, and porbeagle sharks as overfished with overfishing not occurring. Where there are overfished/ overfishing determinations, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to develop management measures to rebuild overfished shark stocks and prevent overfishing.
In March 2007, NMFS presented a predraft of the Amendment 2 to the HMS Advisory Panel (72 FR 7860, February 21, 2007). Based in part on the comments received during scoping and from the HMS Advisory Panel, on July 27, 2007, NMFS developed further and then released the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP and the associated proposed rule (72 FR 41325; 72 FR 41392). The public comment period was originally scheduled to end on October 10, 2007; however, it was subsequently extended (72 FR 56330, October 3, 2007) and reopened until December 17, 2007 (72 FR 64186, November 15, 2007), to provide the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and the public additional opportunity to submit comments. In addition to the written comments submitted, the public verbally commented on the proposed rule at five Regional Fishery Management Council meetings (New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean), an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission meeting, ten public hearings, and one HMS Advisory Panel meeting. The summary of the comments received and NMFS' responses are provided below. Based on these public comments, NMFS re-evaluated the preferred alternatives identified in the draft Amendment 2, made changes as outlined in Final Amendment 2, and now releases its final rule as modified after considering public comment.
Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, the objectives for this final rule are to: (1) implement rebuilding plans for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; (2) provide an opportunity for the sustainable harvest of blacktip and other sharks, as appropriate; (3) prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks; (4) analyze BLL time/area closures and take necessary action to maintain or modify the closures, as appropriate; and (5) improve, to the extent practicable, data collections or data collection programs.
The rebuilding plans in Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP considers the recommendations in the stock assessments to be the best available scientific information on the status of the species and therefore, reflects those recommendations. This includes NMFS establishing rebuilding time periods that are as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stocks and needs of the fishing communities according to National Standard (NS) 1 guidelines.
The 2005/2006 stock assessment for the sandbar shark assumed that sandbar shark fishing mortality from 2005 to 2007 would be maintained at levels similar to 2004 (the last year of data used in the stock assessment was from 2004) and that there would be a constant total allowable catch (TAC) between 2008 and 2070. Using these assumptions, the projections indicated that sandbar sharks would have a 70-percent probability of rebuilding by 2070 with a TAC of 220 mt whole weight (ww) (158 mt dressed weight (dw))/year and a 50-percent probability of rebuilding by 2070 with a TAC of 240 mt ww (172 mt dw)/year. As described in Amendment 2, NMFS used the 70-percent probability of rebuilding to
Under the rebuilding plan, sandbar sharks are separated from the LCS complex, and the base commercial sandbar shark quota is established at 116.6 mt dw/year, which results in a total sandbar shark TAC of 158.3 mt dw (220 mt ww) once other sources of sandbar sharks mortality are included. For the first five years of this rebuilding plan (through 2012), to account for 2007 overharvests, the base commercial quota is reduced to 87.9 mt dw. The adjusted base quota through 2012 includes the amount of quota that would have been available in the 1
Projections in the dusky shark stock assessment indicated that with the age-structured production model (i.e., baseline scenario), dusky sharks could be rebuilt with a 70-percent probability by the year 2400. Other projections from the three other modeling approaches indicate that rebuilding of dusky sharks will take between 100-400 years. As such, in this final rule, NMFS assumes that the rebuilding timeframe that would be as short as possible for dusky sharks would be at least 100 years. The harvest of dusky sharks has been prohibited since 2000. Despite this fact, dusky sharks are still overfished with overfishing occurring. NMFS believes this is at least partly due to the fact that they are caught as bycatch, predominantly in longline fisheries. Many of the final actions in this rule, such as establishing a shark research fishery with 100 percent observer coverage and decreasing the retention limits of non-sandbar large coastal sharks on all fishing vessels, should reduce dusky shark bycatch. This reduction in bycatch should aid in rebuilding and in collecting additional information to evaluate dusky shark status and catches. In the research fishery, if dusky shark catch is high by a particular vessel or in a particular region, NMFS could stop that vessel's trip(s) or stop all research trips in that region and/or time. Additionally, if NMFS decides, after reviewing the data from a particular year, NMFS decides that the catch was too high in the research fishery, NMFS could adjust the research protocols and reduce effort or modify gear requirements, as needed. For the non-research fishery trips, NMFS could either reduce the retention limit in an attempt to reduce effort or work with the appropriate Regional Fishery Management Council to reduce bycatch mortality in certain fisheries, or consider other measures, as appropriate.
A stock assessment was conducted for North Atlantic porbeagle sharks in 2005 by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This assessment was reviewed by NMFS scientists who determined it used appropriate methodologies and all available fishery and biological data including U.S. landings and research. As a result of this review, NMFS determined that the assessment constituted the best available science. NMFS also determined that because the stock assessed is a unit stock that extends into U.S. waters, the assessment and its recommendations were appropriate for use in U.S. domestic management. The assessment recommended that there is a 70-percent probability of rebuilding in 100 years if fishing mortality levels are maintained at or below 0.04 (current fishing mortality level). Considering this science, NMFS believes that the rebuilding timeframe that is as short as possible is 100 years, which will allow a TAC of 11.3 mt dw based on current commercial landings of 1.7 mt dw, current commercial discards of 9.5 mt dw, and current recreational landings of 0.1 mt dw. This results in a commercial porbeagle shark quota of 1.7 mt dw.
This final rule does not contain detailed information regarding the management history of Atlantic sharks or the alternatives considered. Those issues are discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule. Additional information can also be found in the Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP available from NMFS (see
A large number of individuals and groups provided both written and verbal comments on the proposed rule during the 143-day comment period, 10 public hearings, 5 Regional Fishery Management Council meetings, one Interstate Marine Fisheries Commission meeting, and one HMS Advisory Panel meeting. These comments resulted in numerous changes. The comments are summarized below together with NMFS' responses. All of the comments are grouped together by major issue. There are 16 major issues: Quotas/Species Complexes; Porbeagle Sharks as Prohibited; Retention Limits; Fins on Requirement; Time Area Closures; Reporting; Seasons; Regions; Recreational Measures; Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report and Stock Assessment Frequency; Research Fishery/Preferred Alternative; Comments on Other Alternative Suites and Management Measures; Science; National Standards; Economic Impacts; and Miscellaneous. The comments are numbered consecutively, starting with 1, at the beginning of each issue.
Given section 304 and other timing considerations for this action, NMFS did not consider an ITQ system as a reasonable alternative, as it takes several years to properly design an ITQ system that appropriately considers the views of all stakeholders and then to implement such a system. The general requirements for ITQs or LAPPs were included in the 2007 reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act (section 303A). Overall, two basic things must be done when implementing a LAPP system: 1) determine who would receive and who can hold the harvest privileges; and 2) define the nature of the harvest privileges. In addition, NMFS is currently establishing referenda requirements for LAPPs (for instance, a particular allocation scheme must be approved by a given level of the industry). In addition, unlike the research fishery, which would allow an individual fisherman to target sharks on a yearly basis, allocation under an ITQ, IFQ, or LAPP would be for a much longer time period. Because fishermen would have these allocations for a long time, NMFS traditionally works extensively with all stakeholders to devise the best allocation scheme possible for these type of permit programs through workshops and other meetings.
In using historical landings reported by shark dealers to calculate the non-sandbar LCS quota, NMFS follows the recommendations of the stock assessments for Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic blacktip shark populations. These stock assessments recommended keeping catch levels the same in the Atlantic region and not increasing catch levels in the Gulf of Mexico region. Basing quotas on dealer reports would cap fishing effort at historical levels and keep stocks in the Gulf of Mexico healthy and stocks in the Atlantic from declining. Setting quotas higher than these levels could have detrimental effects on shark stocks.
However, as suggested by the commenter, NMFS tried to accommodate incidental landings in other fisheries. Under the final action, fishermen can still retain some non-sandbar LCS while they fish for other species (e.g., reef fish and snapper-grouper). A fisherman with a directed shark permit could harvest 33 non-sandbar LCS per trip and a fisherman with an incidental shark permit could land 3 non-sandbar LCS per trip. The trip limit for directed shark permit holders is based, in part, on BLL observer program data from 2005 to 2007. The observer data showed that fishermen with directed shark permits fishing for snapper-grouper kept, on average, 12 sharks per trip. A 33 non-sandbar trip limit should allow fishermen with directed permits to retain sharks (besides sandbar sharks) they catch while targeting other species and should minimize discards. The incidental trip limit is based on what fishermen with incidental permits currently retain under the status quo.
NMFS also considered whether limiting sandbar harvest to the research fishery would increase dead discards or if NMFS needed to include a trip limit for sandbar sharks. Observer data indicate that fishermen targeting species other than sharks (i.e., snapper-grouper) catch, on average, one sandbar shark per trip. Given that sets on trips not targeting sharks are typically shorter in length and duration than sets on trips targeting sharks, it is anticipated that
In general, shark stock status determinations are based on NMFS-conducted stock assessments. NMFS uses the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process for shark stock assessments, which is open to the public and uses the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to provide independent peer reviews of assessment results.
These assessments consider landings by other countries such as Mexico and Canada but contain mostly U.S. data. For shark species that may have substantial landings outside of the United States (e.g., blue shark), NMFS also relies on the results of the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). These stock assessments are conducted with scientists and data from throughout the world, including U.S. scientists and data. In the case of porbeagle sharks, SCRS determined that ICCAT did not need to conduct a stock assessment since Canada had already conducted one. As such, NMFS scientists reviewed the Canadian stock assessment and determined it was appropriate for use in domestic management.
To date, NMFS has not relied on outside organizations, such as the IUCN, when making stock status determinations. This is due to the unknown nature of the data and peer review methodology applied by these outside groups.
The latest blacktip shark assessments recommended not increasing catch levels in the Gulf of Mexico and keeping catch levels at historical levels in the Atlantic. To account for differences in catch between the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic region and to follow recommendations from the blacktip shark stock assessments, NMFS is implementing a Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS regional quota and an Atlantic non-sandbar LCS regional quota based on historical landings from HMS shark dealer reports from 2003 to 2005. Based on dealer reports, the Atlantic region has a lower non-sandbar LCS base quota (188.34 mt dw) than the Gulf of Mexico region (439.5 mt dw). Since the Atlantic blacktip shark stock assessment recommended not changing landings and did not recommend prohibiting the harvest of blacktip sharks, NMFS is implementing this regional quota based on historical landings in the Atlantic region.
Unlike the sandbar shark assessment, which recommended a specific TAC, or the blacktip stock assessments, which recommended specific catch levels, the dusky shark assessment did not give specific mortality targets. Dusky sharks have been on the prohibited species list in 2000; however, there continue to be dusky shark discards in other fisheries. NMFS estimated reduction in dusky shark mortality as a result of sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS management actions. Based on the reduced quotas and trip limits, NMFS estimates that dusky shark mortality will likely be reduced from 33.1 mt dw to 9.1 mt dw per year. This is a 73-percent reduction in mortality compared to the status quo, which should help rebuild the dusky shark population and afford dusky sharks more protection compared to the status quo.
Finally, NMFS is aware of a separate external hammerhead shark stock assessment that is being conducted, but not aware of separate stock assessments for common threshers or sand tiger sharks. Conducting stock assessments at a species specific level is difficult due to the lack of species-specific information collected to conduct stock assessments for each species of sharks involved in commercial shark fisheries. Therefore, species such as hammerhead sharks and common threshers are managed within species complexes. While NMFS is not implementing management measures for hammerhead sharks, it is likely that hammerhead shark landings will be reduced due to the reduced non-sandbar LCS quota and retention limits.
NMFS has not considered specific management actions for common threshers in this rulemaking, but an annual quota is in place for the pelagic shark complex (488 mt dw), and underharvests of this complex are not applied to the next season. NMFS may consider additional management actions for this species, as warranted, in the future.
For sand tiger sharks, based on their high vulnerability to exploitation and to discourage any future directed fisheries, NMFS included these sharks on the prohibited species list in 1997. Additionally, as with the dusky sharks, a reduction in discards based on the sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS quotas and management actions taken in this rulemaking should afford additional protection for sand tiger sharks.
However, while separate blacktip shark assessments were conducted, NMFS has decided not to implement separate blacktip shark quotas because the shark fishery is a multi-species fishery. The majority of sharks harvested in the directed shark fishery, other than sandbar sharks, are blacktip sharks. For instance, 82-percent of sharks caught in the directed shark fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region are blacktip sharks (not including sandbar sharks). The next highest landings were for hammerhead sharks at 7-percent and bull sharks at 5-percent. The South Atlantic region had the same pattern with the highest percentage of landings, apart from sandbar sharks, for blacktip sharks at 72-percent followed by hammerhead sharks at 14-percent, and then bull sharks at 4-percent. Because NMFS did not have species-specific assessments on other species besides blacktip and sandbar sharks, and because the majority of the LCS catch, not including sandbar sharks, is blacktip sharks, NMFS created a non-sandbar LCS complex with its own quota. To account for differences in catch between the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic region, NMFS is implementing a regional Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS quota and an Atlantic non-sandbar LCS quota.
The recommended TAC associated with a 50-percent probability of rebuilding by 2070 is 172.7 mt dw (or 240 mt whole weight (ww)). However, given the life history of sharks including slow growth, late age of maturity, and relatively small litter sizes, as described in the 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP), a 50-percent probability of success is minimally acceptable for sharks. Thus, NMFS adopted the TAC corresponding to a 70-percent probability of rebuilding by 2070, or 158.3 mt dw (220 mt ww). This timeframe is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NS 1 guidelines at § 600.310, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (which includes the rebuilding requirements of the 1999 FMP), and the other national standards that require NMFS to consider, among other things, the economic and social impacts of the fishery.
Based on the latest shark stock assessments, NMFS is implementing a reduced shark trip limit from 4,000 lb of LCS per trip to 33 non-sandbar LCS per trip for directed permit holders operating outside the research fishery. NMFS expects that this reduced trip limit (approximately one quarter of what a directed fisherman lands on a shark trip under the status quo) and the prohibition on the retention of sandbar sharks will result in fishermen with directed shark permits no longer targeting LCS. Additionally, this trip limit is higher than the average number of sharks shark fishermen currently retain when targeting other species (i.e., 12 sharks from non-targeted trips). Thus, NMFS assumes that the reduced trip limit will allow fishermen with directed shark permits to keep all incidentally caught non-sandbar LCS as they target non-sharks species. Because fishermen will likely be allowed to keep all sharks caught when fishing for other species, the reduced trip limit should reduce the incentive to engage in highgrading.
Due to the severity of the overfished and overfishing status of dusky sharks, the collection of dusky sharks for public display will be prohibited. Aquariums that currently have dusky sharks will not be allowed to replace them. In addition, NMFS will review the allocation of dusky sharks for research under EFPs on a case by case basis. This should allow for research under EFPs on dusky sharks to continue, as appropriate.
As described in the response to Comment 18 in this section, the quantity of sandbar and dusky sharks authorized for display and research (outside of the shark research fishery) is limited under the final action. For sandbar sharks, the amount is limited to what has been landed, on average, under various EFPs during the past six years. Therefore, no negative economic impacts are anticipated with the EFP allocation of sandbar sharks. EFPs and display permits will no longer be issued for the collection of dusky sharks. This regulation is consistent with the prohibition on the harvest of dusky sharks by commercial and recreational fishermen and, because of the overfished status and length of time for rebuilding, is appropriate for dusky sharks.
Finally, because EFPs exempt fishermen from certain regulations that other fishermen must follow, NMFS will continue to issue EFPS, SRPs, and display permits only if the applicant has shown compliance with other relevant regulations regarding reporting, notifying enforcement, and tagging animals.
Other countries that have a directed fishery for porbeagle sharks have reduced their porbeagle quotas. For instance, the Canadian porbeagle quota was cut by 80-percent in 1998. It was cut back even further in 2001 and again in 2006. The current Canadian quota is 250 mt per year, 185 mt of which may be taken by the directed porbeagle shark fishery, with the rest of the quota being allocated for bycatch. In addition, according to the latest ICCAT Recommendation (07-06), all contracting parties are obligated to reduce mortality of porbeagle sharks in their directed porbeagle shark fisheries. NMFS may take additional management measures in the future, as necessary, if future stock assessments warrant such action.
In this final action, NMFS is using a higher base quota. After accounting for overharvests that occurred in 2007 (see Appendix C of the Final Environmental Impact Statement), NMFS is revising the retention limits based on the larger non-sandbar LCS quota. The final measures implement a 33 non-sandbar LCS trip limit for directed permit holders and a three non-sandbar LCS trip limit for incidental permit holders. While the trip limit for directed permit holder has increased from what was proposed in the Draft EIS, NMFS assumes that fishermen with directed shark permits will no longer target non-sandbar LCS outside the research fishery. Rather, a 33 non-sandbar LCS trip limit allows fishermen to keep non-sandbar LCS while they target other species, such as reef fish and snapper-grouper. Based on BLL observer program data from 2005 to 2007, fishermen with directed shark permits fishing for snapper/grouper kept, on average, 12 sharks per trip. Thus, this trip limit should help in preventing excess discards. However, this retention limit will be too low to create an incentive for fishermen to target non-sandbar LCS.
NMFS is aware that the revised retention limit of 33 non sandbar sharks per vessel/trip is a significant reduction from the current 4,000 lb dw LCS retention limit for directed permit holders. These measures are necessary, however, to rebuild overfished stocks, reduce bycatch, and end overfishing consistent with NMFS's obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In order for NMFS to change retention limits for individual vessels based on their past landing history, NMFS would likely consider an IFQ or LAPP. However, as explained in response to Comment 2 under “Quotas” above and in Chapter 1, it would take NMFS several years to implement an ITQ system. Under the current timeline under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for establishing a plan amendment to end overfishing, NMFS has insufficient time to establish an IFQ or LAPP for sharks at this time. However, NMFS could consider developing an IFQ or LAPP for sharks as well as other highly migratory species in the future.
The five year incidental take statement (ITS) for the drift gillnet fishery in the 2003 Biological Opinion (BiOp) was 10 loggerhead sea turtles (with 1 mortality), 22 leatherback sea turtles (with 3 mortalities) and 1 smalltooth sawfish (with zero mortalities). The ITS was specific to drift gillnet gear as strikenet gear had not interacted with protected species, at that time, and sink nets were not considered to be part of the shark gillnet fishery. However from 2003 to 2007 (2003 being the start of the ITS period), vessels with shark permits using drift, sink, and strike gillnets interacted with a total of 13 loggerhead sea turtles (3 of which died or were unresponsive when discarded), 1 leatherback sea turtle and 2 bottlenose dolphins (1 of which died). In addition, in January 2006, an Atlantic right whale calf was caught and died in gillnet gear off the northeast coast of Florida. Therefore, NMFS is not establishing a higher specific gillnet retention limit at this time.
Based on public comment and to acknowledge differences among directed and incidental permit holders (e.g., on average, directed permit holders discard more sandbar and dusky sharks (8.1 mt dw and 25.7 mt dw per year, respectively) than incidental permit holders (1.5 mt dw and 3.8 mt dw per year, respectively)), NMFS' final action is to set separate retention limits based on permit type. Directed permit
However, while the final action sets regional quotas for non-sandbar LCS, NMFS is not implementing regional non-sandbar LCS retention limits. Instead, the same retention limit for non-sandbar LCS would apply in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico regions. NMFS believes that a single retention limit, regardless of region, will help with enforcement and be less confusing for fishermen. For example, with one retention limit, fishermen fishing near the Florida Keys could move between the two regions on one trip. If there were two different retention limits, then fishermen would need to stay in one area per trip or risk landing a higher trip limit in the wrong region. Finally, while the analyses for setting these retention limits used historical fishing effort as a proxy for determining the retention limit, it is uncertain how future effort would be allocated among regions, or even states. This added uncertainty makes it difficult to determine a region-specific or state-specific retention limit, given the other management measures that are changing as a result of this final action.
However, for trips outside the research fishery, sandbar sharks would be prohibited and there would be reduced non-sandbar LCS trip limits. Therefore, NMFS assumes that directed shark permit holders would no longer make trips targeting non-sandbar LCS because of the significant reduction in retention limits and the fact that sandbar sharks could not be retained, therefore, the catch composition and subsequent sandbar discards described in the comment above would not apply to trips occurring outside the research fishery. Given this assumption, and based on the best available science from logbook, dealer reports, and observer program data, NMFS estimates that incidental sandbar shark mortality outside the research fishery would be approximately 40 mt dw. This estimate was determined by evaluating logbook data and observer reports to estimate sandbar shark discards from pelagic longline (PLL) gear (4.3 mt dw), discards by recreational fishermen (27 mt dw), discards within the shark research fishery (0.3 mt dw), sandbar sharks discarded by fishermen without HMS permits (6.3 mt dw), and sandbar sharks that used to be landed by incidental fishermen (2.3 mt dw).
NMFS is currently capable of accepting electronic reports from some dealers who have access to that data system in the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and faxes of shark dealer landings. NMFS does not issue confirmation numbers when shark dealer reports are received; however, submitting dealer reports by FAX or electronically includes a date/time stamp in addition to whether the transmission was successful or not. Shark dealers may also consider using
NMFS proposed counting all unclassified sharks from shark dealer reports as sandbar sharks to provide dealers with an incentive to identify sharks to the species level because if the quota for sandbar sharks were filled, they would no longer be able to purchase sandbar sharks. However, NMFS believes that allocating landings to the appropriate complex/species based on observer data is a more accurate means of accounting for unclassified landings. Furthermore, NMFS is concerned that counting all unclassified sharks as sandbar sharks may result in the shark research fishery closing prematurely.
NMFS has been working with the State of Louisiana, and other states, to ensure consistent management strategies for sharks in state and Federal waters due to excessive landings that occurred in Louisiana state waters in 2007. In 2007, the State of Louisiana agreed with NMFS to close its state waters when the federal fishery closed during the third trimester of 2007. Additionally, ASMFC recently voted on final management measures for a coast-wide state shark plan for states in the Atlantic Ocean. The final measures included in the ASMFC Coastal Shark FMP are expected to be effective in 2009. Many of the final measures in the ASMFC Coastal Shark FMP are consistent with federal regulations and will require commercial state shark fisheries to open and close with federal openings and closures. The implementation of ASMFC's Coastal Shark FMP could potentially lead to similar measures being implemented in the Gulf of Mexico.
These final measures should reduce the mortality of pregnant females. Furthermore, the closed area off the coast of North Carolina, which is important habitat for dusky and sandbar
NMFS believes that, given the two week reporting period for dealer reports and the potential for late reporting, closing the fishery when landings reach 90- to 95-percent of the quota would likely result in overharvests. Overharvests will result in reduced quotas in the future since all overharvests will be accounted for when establishing subsequent seasons and quotas.
NMFS also received several comments opposed to maintaining the three regions, including: NMFS should either divide quota equally among regions or have one region since quotas are so low; Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic stocks should be managed as one unit.
NMFS received numerous comments from Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, ASMFC, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, and members of the general public in favor of maintaining more than one region. Commenters suggested reasons for maintaining more than one region, including: the best scientific evidence available indicates that the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic stocks are separate; genetic evidence has shown separate stocks of some species between the Gulf and South Atlantic; shark management should account for separate stocks and separate the quota accordingly; blacktip sharks are healthy in the Gulf of Mexico; bycatch issues are unique to each region; and, moving to one region ignores stock assessments and the temporal nature of the fishery, which was identified during the previous amendment.
Based on public comment, NMFS has decided to implement two regions, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, rather than one region as originally proposed. Maintaining two regions has several advantages, including: it adheres to the stock assessment for blacktip sharks which assessed this species separately in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; it accounts for overharvests that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic in 2007 more equitably; it allows for unique quotas to be implemented in each region that account for different species composition in each region; and it maintains the flexibility to implement unique regulations in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean.
The 2006 LCS assessment assessed blacktip sharks as two distinct populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. Unique results were found for each population with the Gulf of Mexico population healthy and the Atlantic stock unknown. The assessment recommended maintaining current harvest levels in both regions. NMFS prefers measures consistent with the stock assessment by maintaining two regions: the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. The blacktip shark was the only species assessed as distinct, regional populations.
At this time, NMFS does not issue unique permits based on geography within the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. This type of permit was not considered during this rulemaking.
Silky sharks are authorized for landing in commercial fisheries because there is a higher likelihood that these sharks may be discarded dead than if they were landed in recreational fisheries. Moreover, commercial fishermen are more adept at distinguishing between silky sharks and sandbar or dusky sharks. Prohibiting silky sharks in commercial fisheries would result in more significant economic consequences than prohibiting them in recreational fisheries because commercial fishermen are allowed to sell the fins and flesh of sharks that are caught in accordance with applicable regulations. There is not a significant targeted fishery among recreational or CHB anglers for spinner sharks, therefore, economic impacts would be less severe among this group of stakeholders.
NMFS is also working on additional outreach materials such as a one page quick identification guide to improve identification and understanding of regulations among recreational anglers. These outreach materials would be either free or available at a low cost to ensure that all permit holders have access to them. NMFS has recently implemented shark identification workshops for shark dealers and other interested members of the public. While not mandatory for recreational anglers, participants in any HMS sector or the general public may attend. These workshops provide anglers, dealers, and commercial fishermen with the ability to properly identify shark carcasses.
The IUCN determined that the scalloped hammerhead is “lower risk, near threatened” with an unknown population trend in 1994. In 2001, the IUCN listed great hammerhead sharks as “endangered” with a decreasing
Some of the objectives for the research fishery are to continue to collect sandbar shark landings data to ensure consistent time-series data for future stock assessments and to answer specific research questions concerning shark life history and mechanisms to reduce bycatch, among others. Incidental permit holders have contributed to limited landings of sandbar sharks in the past; therefore, some landings data for sandbar sharks from incidental permit holders in the shark research fishery may be warranted.
Under alternative suite 2, porbeagle sharks would be added to the prohibited list for commercial and recreational fishing because porbeagle sharks were determined to be overfished based on the 2005 Canadian stock assessment. In addition, porbeagle sharks often look similar to other prohibited species (i.e., white sharks). Therefore, placing porbeagle sharks on the prohibited species list would prohibit landings and help rebuild this overfished species. It may also stop commercial and recreational landings of other look-alike shark species, such as white sharks, which are also prohibited.
Alternative suite 2 is not more protective of sandbar sharks than alternative suite 4 (the final action). In fact, it could result in more sandbar shark discards compared to alternative suite 4 (43.2 mt dw compared to 13.1 mt dw). In addition, allowing directed shark permit holders to fish for sandbar sharks with PLL gear, especially in the mid-Atlantic closed area, could increase discards and overall mortality of dusky sharks. Thus, sandbar sharks would be prohibited on PLL gear under alternative suite 2 to offer dusky sharks more protection. NMFS estimated that prohibiting the retention of sandbar sharks on PLL gear under alternative suite 2 could reduce dusky discards to 8.6 mt dw per year.
This final action also reduces quotas and retention limits to rebuild depleted shark stocks and end overfishing of several shark species, while minimizing regulatory discards. In addition, the final action should allow for the collection of fishery dependent data for future stock assessments and biological samples for shark research, while also allowing a few shark fishermen to continue to fish and generate revenues from shark landings as they have in the past.
Economic impacts under alternative suite 3 would vary depending on permit type. For instance, the retention limits under alternative suite 3 are higher than retention limits for incidental permit holders under alternative suite 4 (the final action), possibly resulting in positive economic impacts for incidental shark permit holders. In addition, under alternative suite 3, incidental and directed permit holders would have the same retention limit. This would presumably remove the difference and value between permit types, which may benefit incidental permit holders, but may be detrimental to directed permit holders. Under the final action, directed and incidental permit holders outside the research fishery would have different non-sandbar LCS retention limits based on permit type. This would allow the distinction and difference in value between directed and incidental permit types to continue. In addition, directed and incidental permit holders outside the research fishery would not be able to retain sandbar sharks. This would most likely result in fishermen no longer directing fishing effort on sharks outside the research fishery, which could have negative economic impacts on these fishermen. However, unlike alternative suite 3, in the final action, there will be a small research fishery, which would allow a few shark fishermen to direct effort on sharks and sell their catch. This research fishery would also allow the continuation of fishery dependent data collection to help with future stock assessments. Therefore, NMFS is implementing alternative suite 4 at this time.
Retention limits under alternative suites 3 and 4 were designed to keep the shark fishery open longer than it has been in the past. This could allow shark products to be available year-round, and possibly avoid gluts in the market, as were experienced in the past when a majority of the shark products were available for a short period of time.
In addition, under alternative suites 3 and 4, NMFS would change the dealer reporting requirements, requiring dealers to mail reports so that they are received by NMFS within 10 days after the reporting period ends. This change should ensure more timely reporting and potentially avoid overharvests. Under alternative suite 3, NMFS considered a list of species that recreational anglers could land; this list did not include blacktip, bull, or spinner sharks because of potential misidentification issues with overfished shark species. However, based on public comment, NMFS is revising this list to allow recreational fishermen to land these species. The diagnostic characteristic for recreational anglers will be the lack of an interdorsal ridge. Recreational fishermen would be allowed to land non-ridgeback LCS plus tiger sharks. This characteristic should allow fishermen to land blacktip, bull, and spinner sharks, but not mistakenly land sandbar or silky sharks, which have an interdorsal ridge and are often mis-identified as dusky sharks. Therefore, given public comment and the revision in the allowable species for recreational anglers, NMFS is implementing alternative suite 4 at this time.
The assessment assumed that fishing mortality from 2005 to 2007 would be maintained at levels similar to 2004 (the last year of data used in the stock assessment was from 2004) and that there would be a constant TAC between 2008 and 2070. Based in part on these assumptions, the assessment estimated that sandbars would have a 70-percent probability of rebuilding by 2070 with a TAC of 220 mt ww (158 mt dw)/year and a 50-percent probability of rebuilding by 2070 with a TAC of 240 mt ww (172 mt dw)/year. As described previously, NMFS is using the 70-percent probability of rebuilding to ensure that the intended results of a management action are actually realized given the life history traits of sandbar sharks.
Therefore, NMFS believes that the 2005/2006 LCS complex, blacktip and sandbar shark stock assessments represent the best available science and is not re-doing the stock assessments before implementing management measures in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. Under the NS1 Guidelines, if a stock is overfished, NMFS is required to “take remedial action by preparing an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulation...to rebuild the stock or stock complex to the MSY level within an appropriate time frame” (50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)(ii)). Additionally, “in cases where a stock or stock complex is overfished, [the] action must specify a time period for rebuilding the stock or stock complex that satisfies the requirements of section 304(e)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” Therefore, consistent with the results of the 2005/2006 LCS complex, blacktip and sandbar shark stock assessment results, the Consolidated HMS FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is implementing final management measures to rebuild sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks while providing an opportunity for the sustainable harvest of blacktip sharks and other sharks in the LCS complex.
The American Elasmobranch Society (AES) is a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the scientific study of living and fossil sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras, and the promotion of education, conservation, and wise utilization of natural resources. The Society holds annual meetings and presents research reports of interest to students of elasmobranch biology. Those meetings are held in conjunction with annual meetings of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists each year at rotating North American venues. Membership in the AES is open to any person who has an interest in the object of AES. Members of AES include, but are not limited to, representatives from state and federal governmental and non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions. NMFS employees are not restricted from participating in professional societies and, to the extent that participation aids in the collaboration, communication, and peer-reviews in the scientific endeavors of NOAA's mission, employees are encouraged to participate. While participating, employees must differentiate between when they are providing their own personal opinion or when they are acting as a representative of NOAA. Therefore, participation of NMFS employees in AES activities does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest. In this case, there is no evidence from which NMFS can conclude that a conflict of interest occurred.
In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed an authorized recreational species list that was limited to those species that are easy to identify or that could not be misidentified with other species. NMFS originally proposed to prohibit the retention of blacktip sharks because of the potential for misidentification with spinner sharks, but specifically asked for public comment on the proposed list of prohibited species. As a result, based on public comments received and because blacktip sharks are healthy in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS is implementing an amended authorized shark species list in the recreational fishery. The amended list is based on readily identifiable characters such as the lack of an inter-dorsal ridge, and allows the landing of non-ridgeback LCS plus tiger sharks. This amended list adds blacktip, spinner, finetooth, porbeagle and bull sharks to the list of authorized species for recreational anglers in all regions.
Longer rebuilding periods are allowed under NS1 of Magnuson-Stevens Act when the following conditions specified in the NS 1 Guidelines (50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B)(
[i]f the lower limit is 10 years or greater, then the specified time period for rebuilding may be adjusted upward to the extent warranted by the needs of fishing communities....except that no such upward adjustment can exceed the rebuilding period calculated in the absence of fishing mortality, plus one mean generation time or equivalent period based on the species' life-history characteristics.
NMFS recognizes that the costs of managing the shark fishery relative to the level of future shark fishing activity will be high. However, there are non-monetary benefits associated with maintaining a limited commercial shark industry. These benefits include the ability to continue gathering fishery data, maintenance of industry knowledge regarding shark fishing practices, and other potential cultural and social benefits. The final action attempts to balance the economic needs of fishing communities with the recommendations of recent stock assessments. BLL and gillnet gear will continue to be deployed in other fisheries that interact with sharks. Setting a retention limit that allows fishermen to keep a portion of these fish without targeting non-sandbar LCS should minimize dead discards while discouraging targeting of non-sandbar LCS. Allocating the entire sandbar shark quota to a shark research fishery quota should result in collection of data that could improve future stock assessments and the development of management measures for the fishery.
The shark fishery did develop an industry “business plan” that examined options for a buyout, which is further described in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS.
NMFS acknowledges that dealer impacts could also be substantial and could vary significantly by dealer,
NMFS recognizes the importance of sandbar shark landings to the shark fishing sector. However, sandbar shark landings only comprised 30-percent of the estimated total value of the shark fishery in 2005 ($602,764 in sandbar shark meat and $1,181,803 in fins, versus a total shark fishery revenue of $6,027,516).
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to develop management measures to rebuild overfished shark stocks and prevent overfishing. The final action attempts to balance the economic needs of fishermen and fishing communities with this requirement.
NMFS is reviewing existing data sources for recreational landings of porbeagle sharks. Efforts to expand recreational data collection may be necessary to improve information on porbeagle shark landings in recreational fisheries.
The final action allows recreational anglers to harvest blacktip, finetooth, bull, spinner, and porbeagle sharks.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) was created to create new jobs and retain existing jobs in economically stressed communities. Through a series of grant programs, the EDA helps distressed communities develop strategies to improve their own economic situation through a multifaceted cooperative effort. Most of the EDA activity affecting the fishing industry has been funded through the EDA's Public Works Program and the EDA's Economic Adjustment Program. The Public Works Program has funded port and harbor improvements. The Economic Adjustment Program helps communities adjust to serious changes in their economic situation, and proceeds from this program are generally used for organization, business development, revolving loan funds, infrastructure, and market research. Interested parties can learn more about these programs, including eligibility requirements and contact information, by visiting the EDA website:
The U.S. Department of Labor's Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act provides funds to States and local substate grantees so they can help dislocated workers find and qualify for new jobs. It is part of a comprehensive approach to aiding workers who have lost their jobs that also includes provisions of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Trade
At the discretion of the Secretary or at the request of the Governor of an affected State or a fishing community, the Secretary shall determine whether there is a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster as a result of natural causes, man-made causes beyond the control of fishery managers to mitigate through conservation and management measures, including regulatory restrictions (including those imposed as a result of judicial action) imposed to protect human health or the marine environment, or undetermined causes.
All analyses for determinations (which can be at the request of a Governor or at the Secretary's own discretion) under section 312(a) must undergo a three-prong test: first, the Secretary must determine if there has been a commercial fishery failure; he must also determine that any such failure is the result of a fishery resource disaster; finally, the cause of that disaster must meet the articulated causes outlined in the statute.
Note that under 50 CFR 635.4(a)(3), “Limited access vessel permits or any other permit issued pursuant to this part do not represent either an absolute right to the resource or any interest that is subject to the takings provision of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, limited access vessel permits represent only a harvesting privilege that may be revoked, suspended, or amended subject to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or other applicable law.”
[i]f the lower limit is 10 years or greater, then the specified time period for rebuilding may be adjusted upward to the extent warranted by the needs of fishing communities....except that no such upward adjustment can exceed the rebuilding period calculated in the absence of fishing mortality, plus one mean generation time or equivalent period based on the species' life-history characteristics.
In addition to the correction of minor edits throughout, NMFS has made several changes to the proposed rule. These changes are outlined below.
1. In § 635.2, the definition of “naturally attached” was added. The definitions of “dress” and “dressed weight” were modified to clarify the regulation requiring commercial vessel operators to keep the fins on the shark carcass through offloading.
2. In § 635.2, the definition of “first receiver” was revised based on public comment and discussions with NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement. The revised definition matches more fully with other definitions of first receivers in other fishery regulations (see 50 CFR parts 622 and 648) and clarifies who needs to have a shark dealer permit.
3. In § 635.2, the definition of “shark research permit” was modified to specify that the permit is specific to the vessel and owner combination, not just the vessel. This change will ensure that owners who are chosen to participate in the shark research fishery and who are trying to sell their vessel, do not try to sell their shark research permit with their vessel, since the particular applicant was chosen by NMFS to conduct the research based on certain factors.
4. In § 635.5(b)(1)(i), a clarification is made that shark dealers must report fin weight and meat weight separately, as specified on the forms. Additionally, after publication of this final rule, NMFS intends to seek approval, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to require dealers to check a box on the dealer form to indicate whether sharks were landed with the fins attached or not. This requirement would be made effective when OMB approves the information collection under Control Number 0648-0040. Notification of approval will be published in the
5. In § 635.21(d)(1)(iii), the definitions of the MPAs are modified to match the final areas recommended by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in the summer of 2007.
6. In § 635.22(c), the list of species that can be landed under the recreational retention limit was modified to include non-ridgeback species of LCS, tiger sharks, small coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks based on public comment. In the proposed rule, the harvest of certain species that NMFS felt were difficult to identify correctly, such as bull, spinner, and blacktip sharks, was proposed to be prohibited by recreational fishermen. NMFS feels that the species that are finalized in this action are easily identified and more closely match the intent of the proposed regulation. Additionally, the entire paragraph was reorganized for clarity.
7. Section 635.24(a) was modified to update the commercial retention limits based on public comment, additional analyses, and changes to the proposed quotas. Specifically, an adjusted retention limit for non-sandbar LCS from the effective date of this rule through 2012 was added to account for overharvests in 2007. Additionally, a paragraph has been added to prohibit the highgrading of sharks by commercial
8. In § 635.27(b), the commercial quotas were modified based on public comment and additional analyses. Specifically, a porbeagle shark quota was added, unclassified sharks will be counted towards the appropriate species quota based on ratios in observer data and/or on shark dealer reporting forms, the non-sandbar LCS quota was split into two regions (modified from the current definition to clarify that the Florida Keys are located in the Gulf of Mexico region), and an adjusted base quota from the effective date of this rule through 2012 (five years) was added to account for overharvests in 2007. Future overharvests will generally be taken off the following year, as proposed. However, depending on the amount of future overharvests, NMFS may deduct the overharvests over several years up to a maximum of five years. Spreading the overharvests out should, among other things, ensure that the shark research fishery can continue to collect much-needed data each year.
Additionally, NMFS clarified the section on adjusting quotas based on underharvests to clarify that if a species in a particular quota group (e.g., non-sandbar LCS) were overfished, overfishing were occurring, or had an unknown status, then NMFS would not adjust the quota based on underharvests.
9. In § 635.28(b), the section was modified, based on public comment, to allow for all species groups and regions to be closed separately, instead of together as proposed, when the fishery is expected to reach 80 percent of the relevant quota.
10. In § 635.30(c)(2) and (3), sentences were added, corresponding to the added definitions of “naturally attached” and “dress,” to clarify the regulation to keep all fins attached to the corresponding shark carcass, including the upper lobe of the tail, through offloading and to state specifically that no shark fins are allowed on a vessel unless the fins are naturally attached to a shark carcass.
11. In § 635.31, paragraph (c)(1) was added to clarify that persons may only sell sharks if both the fishery and/or region is open.
12. In § 635.32(f), additional specifics regarding the required items on the application and the process for issuing shark research permits were added based on public comment, requests by NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, and requests by NMFS scientists. These specifics include the requirement for vessels to have complied with observer coverage regulations and HMS fishery regulations to be eligible for a shark research permit under this part. Additional clarifications on how NMFS will select vessels have been added.
13. In § 635.71, various prohibitions have been updated or modified based on the changes listed above.
The 2008 adjusted commercial quotas for each shark species group is as follows: sandbar shark (shark research fishery only) = 87.9 mt dw; non-sandbar LCS = 615.8 mt dw; pelagic sharks other than blue or porbeagle = 488 mt dw; blue shark = 273 mt dw; porbeagle shark = 1.7 mt dw; and SCS = 454 mt dw. The non-sandbar LCS commercial quota is further split by region and fishery as follows: Atlantic region = 187.8 mt dw; Gulf of Mexico region = 390.5 mt dw; and shark research fishery = 37.5 mt dw.
On July 24, 2008, the sandbar, non-sandbar LCS, pelagic shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and SCS fisheries will open under the quotas noted above. All of these fisheries will remain open through December 31, 2008, unless the quota for that shark species group (or in the case of non-sandbar LCS, regional area) is projected to reach 80 percent of its available quota. When calculating the percent of the available quota caught for each species and/or region, NMFS will include landings from January 1, 2008, through July 24, 2008. As specified in § 635.27(b)(1), once the landings for that shark species group or regional area reach 80 percent of its quota, NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register an appropriate rulemaking for that shark species group that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure, until NMFS announces via a notice in the
When the fishery for a shark species group and/or regional area is closed, a fishing vessel issued an Atlantic Shark LAP pursuant to § 635.4 may not possess or sell a shark of that species group, except under the conditions specified in § 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and a NMFS-approved observer is onboard. A shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may not purchase or receive a shark of that species group from a vessel issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess sharks that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage. In the case of non-sandbar LCS, during a regional fishing closure, a fishing vessel issued an Atlantic Shark LAP pursuant to § 635.4 and operating in region(s) closed to shark fishing may not possess or sell a shark of that species group, except under the conditions specified in § 635.22(a) and (c). A shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 and located in the closed region may not purchase or receive a shark of that species group from a vessel issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess sharks that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage. Under a closure for a shark species group and/or regional closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, in accordance with state regulations, purchase or receive a shark of that species group if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued a Shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS CHB permit pursuant to § 635.4. Additionally, under a closure for a shark species group and/or regional closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may purchase or receive a shark of that species group if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel issued a valid shark research permit (per § 635.32) that had a NMFS-approved observer on board during the trip during which sharks were collected.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries determined that Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the Atlantic shark fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
NMFS prepared a FEIS for this FMP amendment. The FEIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on April 11, 2008. A notice of availability was published on April 18, 2008 (73 FR 21124). In approving the FMP amendment, NMFS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on June 6, 2008, identifying the selected alternatives. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (see
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the PRA and which has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-
This rule also contains revisions to collection of information 0648-0040. The revisions are subject to review and approval by OMB under PRA. Currently, this collection of information is under review at OMB for revisions other than those contained in this rule (73 FR 18473, April 4, 2008). Once OMB approves the revisions in that rule, NMFS will submit a PRA package to OMB for approval regarding the addition of a check box on the dealer form. This check box would allow the dealer to note whether the shark fins were attached to the shark at landing or not. NMFS does not expect that the addition of a check box regarding shark fins would add to the reporting burden. NMFS will publish a document in the
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
With the release of the proposed rule on July 27, 2007, NMFS determined that the management measures in this rule will be implemented in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management programs of states with Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) programs that are located in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the CZMA. On October 10, 2007, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) objected to NMFS' consistency determination that the provisions in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the Georgia Coastal Zone Management Program (GCZMP). The October 10, 2007, letter stated that NMFS failed to consider the elimination of the use of shark gillnets in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. GDNR claims that the use of gillnets in Federal waters is inconsistent with the GCZMP because the program bans the use of gillnet and longline gear in state waters to address bycatch of protected species and marine mammals.
NMFS considered the comments in the October 10, 2007, letter and, for the reasons stated below, has determined that the final actions in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, including allowing the use of gillnet gear in the Atlantic shark fishery, are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the GCZMP, 15 CFR 930.32.
NMFS shares the State of Georgia's concern regarding the impact of the shark gillnet fishery on threatened and endangered species. Given these impacts, NMFS will not implement measures that increase fishing effort with this gear type, such as setting gillnet specific retention limits for blacktip sharks. However, NMFS also recognizes that the data currently available indicate relatively low rates of bycatch and bycatch mortality of protected species and other finfish in the shark gillnet fishery compared to other HMS and non-HMS fisheries. It is worth noting that observer coverage rates in the shark gillnet fishery are higher than in other fisheries because of Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan requirements. Increased observer coverage reduces the associated error that can be introduced when calculating bycatch and protected resource interactions on non-observed trips. For instance, observer reports indicate that finfish bycatch in shark gillnet fishery during 2007 ranged from 1.7 to 13.3 percent of the total catch. In addition, observed protected species bycatch (sea turtles and marine mammals) was less than 0.1 percent of the total catch. Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is appropriate to eliminate this fishery and shift its associated effort to other fisheries that have higher interaction rates with protected resources and marine mammals.
In addition, according to recent observer reports, only four to six vessels use shark gillnet gear, therefore, the cumulative impact of this fishery is not expected to have significant ecological impacts on non-target species. The incidental capture of endangered species in the shark gillnet fishery is regulated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A BiOp issued May 20, 2008, in response to the actions taken in the Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, concluded, that the continuation of the shark gillnet (including strikenets, drift gillnets, and sink gillnets) fishery would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of protected species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Furthermore, the BiOp indicated that shark strikenets are not likely to have much impact on sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish takes because deployment of this gear currently results in very few takes. Interactions with protected resources occur more frequently with drift or sink gillnets than using strikenets, but gillnet gear interactions with protected resources are still minimal compared to longline fishing.
In addition, currently, all shark gillnet vessels are required to carry VMS and are subject to observer coverage during and outside of the right whale calving season. The most recent regulations amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan were published in the
NMFS acknowledges the concerns raised by the State of Georgia regarding protected resources interactions and bycatch that occurs in gillnet gear. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1), (3), (8), and (9)), NMFS must, among other things, implement conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery; manage stocks throughout their range to the extent practicable; minimize adverse economic
At this time, there is not sufficient information to support a closure of the shark gillnet fishery in Federal waters adjacent to Georgia, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act. This decision is consistent with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the economic analyses completed to support the action. A summary of the analysis, which addresses each of the requirements in 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)-(5), can be found below. A copy of the full analysis is available in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP (see
The need for and objectives of the final rule are fully described in the preamble of the proposed rule (72 FR 41392, July 27, 2007) and in Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP and are not repeated here (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)). In summary, the selected actions in this final rule will rebuild overfished shark fisheries by: reducing the commercial quotas, adjusting the commercial retention limits, establishing a shark research fishery, requiring commercial vessels to maintain all fins on the shark carcasses through offloading, establishing two regional quotas for non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), establishing one annual season for commercial shark fishing, changing the reporting requirements for dealers (including swordfish and tuna dealers), establishing additional time/area closures for BLL fishermen, and changing the authorized species for recreational fishermen. This rule also establishes the 2008 commercial quota for all shark species groups. These changes affect all commercial and recreational shark fishermen and shark dealers.
A FRFA is also required to include a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of the issues raised, and a statement of any changes made in the rule as a result of the comments (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(2)). NMFS received many comments on the proposed rule and draft EIS during the public comment period. A summary of these comments and NMFS's responses are included above. The specific economic concerns raised in comments are also summarized here.
NMFS received a comment that NMFS should consider an alternative suite that incorporates a “phase out” of the commercial shark industry. NMFS did consider such an alternative in the Draft EIS that would have ended Atlantic commercial shark fishing, Alternative Suite 5. Under this alternative, shark landings would have been limited to research and the collection for public display via the HMS Exempted Fishing Program. Recreational fisheries would have been catch and release only. However, after careful consideration of the other alternatives, this alternative suite was not preferred due to the economic costs associated with a complete closure as discussed in Chapter 6 of Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP.
NMFS received several comments regarding an industry buyout/buyback. NMFS recognizes that some participants of the Atlantic shark fishery expressed interest in reducing fishing capacity for sharks via some form of buyout program. Buyouts can occur via one of three mechanisms, including: through an industry fee, via appropriations from the United States Congress, and/or with funds provided from any State or other public sources or private or non-profit organization. A buyout plan is not proposed in this rulemaking, despite requests for consideration from the HMS Advisory Panel and other affected constituents, because NMFS is unable to independently implement a buyout as a management option. Buyouts must be initiated via one of the aforementioned mechanisms. The shark fishery did develop an industry “business plan” that examined options for a buyout, which is further described in Chapter 1 of the Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP.
NMFS received several comments concerning the potential for severe economic impacts associated with all of the alternatives considered (other than status quo). Comments indicated a concern that many fishermen may not be able to survive economically until the next stock assessment. NMFS estimated that the alternatives considered, including the no action alternative, would result in economic consequences to the shark fishery. The
It was also suggested that NMFS should include analysis of the negative economic impacts associated with prohibiting porbeagle sharks in shark tournaments, especially in New England. NMFS appreciates this additional information regarding the importance of porbeagle sharks in tournament fisheries. Additional information has been incorporated into the final EIS for Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP to further address the potential economic impacts of a prohibition of porbeagle landings. However, based on strong support from the public not to prohibit retention of porbeagle sharks and NMFS' recognition of the negative impacts of such a prohibition, NMFS is choosing not to prohibit the recreational retention of porbeagle sharks.
Comments indicated that economic impacts on recreational fisheries would be significant if sandbar, bull, and blacktip sharks were prohibited in the recreational fishery. Comments indicated that the negative economic impacts resulting from the reduced number of sharks that could be legally landed by recreational anglers would be particularly pronounced in areas where blacktip sharks are frequently encountered. In addition, tournaments offering prize categories for sharks could also experience negative economic impacts as a result of not allowing six additional species to be retained in recreational fisheries. Due to a lack of information regarding the relative preferences of shark fishermen to retain shark species over practicing catch-and-release shark fishing, NMFS was unable to quantitatively estimate the economic impacts of the proposed recreational measures restricting the authorized list of species that could be retained. In part to mitigate these impacts, the final preferred alternative suite would allow recreational anglers to retain blacktip, finetooth, blacknose, bull, spinner, and porbeagle sharks.
Comments also indicated a concern that dealers will not likely be interested in continuing to buy shark products when the proposed measures go into place. NMFS acknowledges that some dealers may opt to no longer participate in the shark fishery due to the decrease in volume of shark product that is anticipated under the reduced quotas. Handling low volumes of shark product may not be profitable for some dealers. However, the information available to NMFS indicates that several shark dealers already handle small quantities of shark products, and therefore, changes in the shark fishery are unlikely to cause them to change their business practices. Reduced domestic harvest of sandbar sharks could potentially increase the value of shark product in the future due to reduced supplies. Furthermore, having the season open for a longer period of time each year, subject to reduced retention limits, may enhance the domestic shark meat market and increase prices.
Several comments suggested NMFS should implement a retraining program for fishermen and families that are displaced by this action. Others suggested that fishermen reconfigure their businesses towards providing tourism services. NMFS has worked with a number of other agencies/departments to explore programs that are available to fishermen and other businesses affected by fishery management measures. Some of these include retraining programs and financial assistance and would mitigate some of the economic impacts of this rule. These programs are further discussed in response to comments provided above.
Commenters also suggested that NMFS consider giving shark fishermen swordfish handgear permits in order to help offset negative economic impacts, while also increasing swordfish landings. NMFS did not propose changes to the permit system pursuant to the rulemaking; however, NMFS will take this suggestion under consideration for future actions. NMFS notes that the swordfish handgear permit is a limited access permit. Therefore, issuing new swordfish handgear permits may result in negative economic impacts to current holders of swordfish handgear permits. In addition, NMFS recently issued new regulations to revitalize the swordfish fishery and may consider additional measures in the future depending on the outcome of the current regulatory changes.
NMFS received a comment questioning whether shark permits will still have any value after the proposed management changes take place. It is difficult to predict the value of shark directed and incidental permits before management measures associated with this Amendment are implemented. It is likely that the value of shark permits may be decreased as a result of quota reductions and reduced retention limits. However, there will still be some demand for shark permits by new entrants into the commercial swordfish and tuna fisheries who will need all three HMS permits to fish.
NMFS received comments indicating that requiring fishermen to land sharks with fins on will change the entire pricing of shark product. Commenters suggested that NMFS could be changing the whole valuation process by requiring that sharks have their fins on. The requirement to land sharks with their fins attached would allow fishermen to leave the fins attached by just a small piece of skin so that the shark could be packed efficiently on ice at sea. Shark fins could then be quickly removed at the dock without having to thaw the shark. Sharks may be eviscerated, bled, and the head removed from the carcass at sea. These measures should prevent any excessive amounts of waste at the dock, since dressing the shark (except removing the fins) can be performed while at sea. While this will result in some changes to the way fishermen process sharks at sea, the transfer of shark product to dealers could remain relatively unchanged because the fins can be removed quickly once the shark has been offloaded. NMFS expects that the market will continue to receive sharks in their log form. While there may be some changes in the way sharks are marketed and priced, it is unlikely that the total ex-vessel value of sharks will change significantly due to the requirement to land sharks with their fins attached.
NMFS considers all HMS commercial permit holders to be small entities because they either had average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood processors (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3)). These are the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for defining a small versus large business entity in this industry. A full description of the fisheries affected and the categories and number of permit holders can be found in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP.
The final rule would apply to the 527 commercial shark permit holders in the Atlantic shark fishery based on an analysis of permit holders on October 1, 2007. Of these permit holders, 231 have directed shark permits and 296 hold incidental shark permits. Not all permit holders are active in the fishery in any given year. NMFS estimates that there are 143 vessels with directed shark permits and 155 vessels with shark incidental permits that could be considered actively engaged in fishing,
In addition, the reporting requirements in the final alternatives would also apply to Federal shark dealers. As of October 1, 2007, there were a total of 269 Atlantic shark dealer permit holders. Based on NMFS' understanding of HMS dealer operations, NMFS assumes that each of these dealers would be considered a small business entity with 100 or fewer employees.
The final measures being considered may also impact the types of services HMS CHB permit holders may provide. As of October 1, 2007, there were 4,899 HMS CHB permit holders. It is unknown what portion of these permit holders actively participate in shark fishing or market shark fishing services for recreational anglers.
In addition, some businesses, such as marinas or specialized tournament organizers that hold tournaments may be considered small entities. HMS tournaments are required to register with NMFS. As such, NMFS has estimates on the number of HMS tournaments. However, NMFS may not necessarily know the number of businesses behind the tournament name and contact. Tournaments offering prize categories for sharks may also experience negative economic impacts as a result of NMFS prohibiting two additional species of sharks for retention in recreational fisheries in alternative suites 2 through 4, as well as alternative suite 5 which would allow no possession of any sharks and only allow catch and release fishing. The majority of tournaments specializing in sharks are in the North Atlantic region, specifically Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts. In 2007, there were 59 tournaments with prize categories for pelagic sharks and 42 (combined) tournaments for LCS and SCS.
The final action requires modifying existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4)). The research program component in this final rule requires modifications to the existing EFP program and dealer reporting requirements.
The final action modifies the reporting frequency for dealers. The current requirement for dealer reports to be post-marked within 10 days after each reporting period (1
The final rule would also create a limited shark research program that would result in changes to existing reporting requirements. Entry into the shark research program would require vessels to submit an application, which would add to the reporting burden for those vessels wishing to apply. Applicants selected to participate in the shark research program under this alternative would also be subject to 100 percent observer coverage as a requirement for eligibility to participate in the program. In addition, selected vessels would continue to report in their normal logbook in addition to the observer program. Vessels in the shark research program, however, would not need to report in the same way as other EFP holders even though they are being issued permits under the EFP program. For example, vessels in the research fishery would not be required to submit interim or annual reports describing their fishing activities. Rather, they would only be required to submit their logbooks per current regulations. Vessels outside the shark research program would still be required to carry an observer if selected and all vessels would still be required to complete logbooks within 48 hours of fishing activity and then submit the logbooks to NMFS within seven days.
One of the requirements of a FRFA is to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule which would accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5)). Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of “significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are:
1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and,
4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, because NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category. As described below, NMFS analyzed seven different alternatives in this rulemaking and provides justification for selection of the final action to achieve the desired objective.
The alternatives considered and analyzed have been grouped into five alternative suites. Alternative suite 1 would maintain the current Atlantic shark fishery (no action). Alternative suite 2 would allow only directed shark
Alternative suite 1, the status quo alternative, would not impose any significant new economic impacts to small businesses in the HMS Atlantic shark fishery because under this alternative the current LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw, in conjunction with the 4,000 lb LCS directed shark permit trip limit, would be maintained. Under this alternative, the current fishing effort would not likely change which could lead to economic benefits from reduced market uncertainty for fishermen and related businesses in the short term. If gross revenues for directed and incidental permit holders is averaged across the approximately 298 active directed and incidental shark permit holders, then the average annual gross revenues per shark fishing vessel is just over $20,000. However, long term, negative economic impacts could occur if current fishing mortality of sandbar sharks, an economically important species, is not decreased as recommended by the LCS stock assessment, and this species continues to be overfished.
The status quo alternative would maintain the existing closures and would not add any new closures. The three management regions would also remain unchanged. There would also be no additional reporting requirements. Alternative suite 1 would also maintain the trimester seasons, which provides fishermen and dealers with more open seasons. With an annual LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw, spreading the seasons out over the calendar year could potentially result in greater economic stability for fishermen and associated communities. However, if quotas are reduced to those in the final action to comply with the recommendations from the LCS stock assessment, while also maintaining the trimester seasons under status quo, trimester seasons could become less economically stable for fishermen and dealers because of the reduced amount of quota and fishing effort during the calendar year. Maintaining existing closures, reporting requirements, and management regions would likely have little to no economic impacts on effected small businesses.
Alternative suite 1 would also maintain the current bag limit for HMS Angling permit holders at one shark greater than 54 inches per vessel per trip as well as one sharpnose and one bonnethead shark (both of which are in the SCS complex) per person per trip. This would likely result in no new economic impacts for businesses operating recreational fishing charter trips targeting sharks and shark fishing tournaments in the short term.
Overall, alternative suite 1 would likely have the lowest economic impact on small businesses. However, this alternative would likely not meet the objectives of this action. Maintaining the LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the recent LCS stock assessment that recommended a TAC of 158.3 mt dw for sandbar sharks for this species to rebuild by 2070. Current fishing effort, under the status quo alternative, would lead to continued overfishing of sandbar, porbeagle and dusky sharks, which could potentially prevent these species from rebuilding in the recommended timeframe. As a result, this alternative was not selected.
Alternative suite 2 would allow only directed shark permit holders to land sharks. In addition, this alternative would remove sandbar sharks from the LCS complex and establish a separate category for sandbar sharks from the LCS complex. The quotas for landing sandbar and non-sandbar LCS would also be reduced. Incidental shark permit holders would not be permitted to land sharks under alternative suite 2. As of 2007, there were 231 directed shark permit holders, 296 incidental shark permit holders, and 269 shark dealer permit holders. One hundred forty-three vessels with directed shark permits and 155 vessels with shark incidental permits reported landing at least one shark in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook from 2003 to 2005 and could be considered active.
Data on gross annual revenues indicate that implementation of alternative suite 2 would result in a significant reduction in revenue for directed shark permit holders. On average, directed permit holders landed 1,286,447 lb dw of sandbar sharks and 1,498,111 lb dw of non-sandbar LCS from 2003 to 2005 based on Federal and state shark dealer reports (landings by permit type were based on percentage of total landings by permit type in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS logbooks). In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to gross revenues of $4,702,031 (assuming 5 percent of the landings are fins and 95 percent of the landings are carcass weight). If gross revenues for directed permit holders are averaged across the approximately 143 active directed shark permit holders, then the average annual gross revenues per shark fishing vessel is just under $33,000 from shark revenues. Under alternative suite 2, gross revenues for directed permit holders would be estimated to be $1,333,417. This is a 72-percent overall reduction in gross revenues compared to the period from 2003 to 2005. These reduced gross revenues averaged across the 143 active directed permit holders are just over $9,000 per directed shark fishing vessel. This estimated reduction in revenue from shark landings could affect the profitability and even viability of some marginal shark fishery operations. Operations that have permits in other fisheries and can easily diversify are less likely to be as affected as those marginal operations. Nevertheless, the profitability of all directed shark fishing vessels would likely be reduced. Because the states of Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina have the most directed shark permits, these states would be most negatively impacted by alternative suite 2.
Directed shark permit holders using PLL gear would also see reduction of revenues under alternative suite 2 because retention of sandbar sharks on PLL gear would be prohibited. On average, 80,825 lb dw of sandbar sharks were reported landed on PLL gear by directed shark permit holders from 2003 to 2005 (HMS logbook data). In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to $117,510 in gross revenues. Given an average of 16.7 vessels landing sandbar sharks with PLL gear from 2003 to 2005, prohibition of sandbar sharks on PLL gear could result in a loss of gross revenues of $7,037 per vessel.
Data on the reduction of per trip revenues also show a decline in revenue for directed permit holders. Under alternative suite 2, directed permit holders would be limited to 8 sandbar sharks per trip and 21 non-sandbar LCS per trip. In comparison, data indicate that under status quo, which has a 4,000
Thus, given that the retention limits under alternative suite 2 (8 sandbars/trip and 21 non-sandbar LCS/trip), the average revenue per trip is estimated to decrease. The reduced non-sandbar LCS retention limit of 21 sharks per trip is based on the average ratio of sandbars to non-sandbar LCS caught in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to limit sandbar shark discards by fishermen deploying non-selective gear. In the Gulf of Mexico, the ratio of sandbars to other LCS caught is 1:4 which, based on an 8 sandbar per trip retention limit, would equal 32 non-sandbar LCS per trip. However, such a high non-sandbar LCS retention limit would result in sandbar discards in the South Atlantic (approximately 65.3 mt dw). Therefore, a 21 non-sandbar LCS/trip retention limit was set to balance discards versus catch in the two regions. This results in approximately 5 sandbar sharks being caught in the Gulf of Mexico region when the non-sandbar LCS retention limit/trip is filled (and therefore, only 86.1 mt dw of the sandbar quota would be filled). Therefore, gross revenues on a trip basis are estimated to be $1,262 per trip in the South Atlantic and $1,333 per trip in the Gulf of Mexico. From 2003 to 2005, there were 124 vessels that averaged more than 324 lb dw (or 8 sandbar sharks) of sandbar/trip.
Incidental permit holders would also experience revenue declines under alternative suite 2 because they would be prohibited from landing sharks. On average, 66 incidental permit holders landed 12,994 lb dw per year of sandbar sharks and 46,333 lb dw per year of non-sandbar LCS from 2003 to 2005 based on Federal and state shark dealer reports and Coastal Fisheries and HMS logbook data. Using 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to gross revenues of $106,491 (assuming 5 percent of the landings are fins and 95 percent of the landings are carcass weight). Gross revenues averaged across the 66 vessels with incidental permits landing sharks were $1,614 per vessel. Since incidental permit holders would not be able to land any sharks under alternative suite 2, the 66 active vessels would be most negatively affected by this alternative suite. The states of Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and North Carolina had the most incidental shark permit holders as of 2007 (144, 37, 20, and 16, respectively).
Alternative suite 2 would also require dealers to submit reports within 24 hours of shark products being purchased. There could be negative economic impacts to Atlantic shark dealers as a result of the increased reporting requirement associated with this alternative. Currently, shark dealer reports are required to submit bimonthly reports, regardless of whether the dealer actually purchased any shark products. Reporting frequency would be increased to 24 hours of when shark products were purchased. While the increased reporting burden would not result in direct costs to the shark dealer, it would result in additional time spent submitting dealer reports. This represents an opportunity cost for dealers since that time could have been spent conducting other activities related to their business. Furthermore, since submitting the reports via regular mail would no longer be feasible, in order to comply with the requirement that dealer reports must be received by NMFS within 24 hours, it is assumed that dealers would have to submit dealer reports electronically or via facsimile. Dealers that do not currently possess a computer or fax machine would have to purchase one of these items. The increased reporting burden implemented in this alternative suite would be subject to approval under the PRA. Reporting requirements for shark vessel permit holders, including the need to carry an observer if selected and the need to submit vessel logbooks within seven days of completing a fishing trip would not be modified, resulting in neutral economic impacts.
The other provisions of alternative suite 2 are the same as in alternative suite 4, which is the final action for this rulemaking. These provisions include: maintaining the 60 mt shark display and research quota; placement of porbeagle sharks on the prohibited list; quota carryover limited to 50 percent of base quota for species not overfished; no carryover for overfished, overfishing or unknown species; sharks fins must remain on the shark; removal of regions and seasons; and limiting the shark species that can be landed recreationally. The effects of these provisions are set forth in the discussion of alternative suite 4.
This alternative suite was not selected for two primary reasons. First, this alternative does not address the impacts of continuing to catch sandbar sharks incidentally. These vessels will likely continue to incidentally catch sandbar sharks but then, under this alternative, those sharks would be required to be discarded. These discards would reduce potential revenues and possibly operating efficiency of vessels possessing incidental shark permits. Regulatory discards would likely lead to increases in mortality and slow efforts to end overfishing. Second, the 24 hour dealer reporting that would be required to effectively manage quotas would result in a significant increase in reporting burden for dealers. This alternative would therefore not minimize the economic cost to dealers in comparison to the preferred alternative.
Under alternative suite 3, the quotas for landing sandbar and non-sandbar LCS would also be reduced to the same level as that in alternative suite 2. However, because alternative suite 3 would allow directed and incidental shark permit holders to land sandbar and non-sandbar LCS as well as SCS and pelagic sharks, the available sandbar and non-sandbar LCS quota would be spread over a larger universe of commercial permit holders. Unlike the status quo or alternative suite 2, the retention limits for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS would be the same for both directed and incidental permit holders. Since directed permit holders presumably make a greater percentage of their gross revenues from shark landings, they are expected to have larger negative socioeconomic impacts compared to incidental permit holders. (Revenues for incidental permit holders are actually expected to increase under this alternative.) The states of Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina have the most directed permit holders. As with alternative suite 2, shark dealers could also experience negative impacts due to the reduction in the sandbar and other LCS quotas and retention limits, which would reduce the overall amount of sharks being landed.
As stated under alternative suite 2, on average, directed permit holders landed 1,286,447 lb dw of sandbar sharks per year and 1,498,111 of non-sandbar LCS per year from 2003 to 2005 based on
The data indicate that directed shark permit holders would experience a loss in revenue under alternative suite 3 greater than under alternative suite 2, given that the available quota is shared with incidental permit holders under alternative suite 3. As stated in alternative 2, the status quo revenue was based on a 4,000 lb dw LCS trip limit for directed shark permit holders with average gross revenues in the South Atlantic of $4,743 per trip and average gross revenues in the Gulf of Mexico of $5,853 per trip. Under alternative suite 3, the retention limits would be 4 sandbars per trip and 10 non-sandbar LCS per trip. However, since the ratio of sandbars to non-sandbar LCS caught in the Gulf of Mexico is 1:4, NMFS estimates that approximately 3 sandbar sharks would be caught in the Gulf of Mexico region when the 10 non-sandbar LCS retention limit/trip is filled (10 non-sandbar LCS / 4 = 2.5 sandbar sharks). Therefore, gross revenues on a trip basis are estimated to be $610 per trip in the South Atlantic and $670 per trip in the Gulf of Mexico. From 2003 to 2005, there were 128 vessels that averaged more than 163 lb dw (or 4 sandbar sharks) of sandbar/trip. Therefore, these vessels would be most negatively affected by retention limits under alternative suite 3.
The revenue of incidental shark permit holders is expected to increase under alternative suite 3. On average, incidental permit holders landed 12,994 lb dw of sandbar sharks and 46,333 lb dw of non-sandbar LCS based on Federal and state shark dealer reports and logbook data. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to gross revenues of $106,491 (assuming 5 percent of the landings are fins and 95 percent of the landings are carcass weight). The available sandbar and non-sandbar LCS quotas would be averaged over directed and incidental permit holders under alternative suite 3. Based on past effort, it was assumed 305 trips could be made by incidental permit holders. This is 22 percent of the expected fishing effort. Therefore, given the 105.9 mt dw (233,467 lb dw) of the sandbar quota and 229.2 mt dw (505,294 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota that could be landed under alternative suite 3, approximately 23 mt dw (50,395 lb dw) of sandbar quota and 50 mt dw (109,069 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota are anticipated to be landed by incidental permit holders. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to $279,441 gross revenues for incidental permit holders. This would result in gross revenues that are 2.7 times higher compared to 2003 to 2005 (gross revenues based on current incidental permit holders' landings were $106,491).
This increase in gross revenues is due to the increase in retention limits for incidental permit holders. Under the status quo, incidental permit holders can retain 5 sharks from the LCS complex. However, under alternative suite 3, incidental permit holders would be able to retain 4 sandbars and 10 non-sandbar LCS or 14 LCS total. This retention limit is almost 3 times higher than what is currently allowed under the status quo. On average, incidental permit holders have been landing 2 sandbar sharks and 3 non-sandbar LCS per trip. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to $307 per trip. However, under alternative suite 3, incidental permit holders would make equivalent gross revenues per trip as directed permit holders: $610 per trip in the South Atlantic and $670 per trip in the Gulf of Mexico. This would result in gross revenues for incidental permit holders that are 2 to 3 times higher than gross revenues in 2003 to 2005 depending on future fishing effort and catch composition. Therefore, there would be positive economic impacts for incidental permit holders under alternative suite 3. Since approximately 66 vessels with incidental permit holders landed sandbar sharks or non-sandbar LCS in 2003 to 2005 in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks, these 66 vessels would have the largest economic benefits under alternative suite 3. However, if sharks become profitable for incidental permit holders under alternative suite 3, then more vessels with incidental permits may actively land sandbars and non-sandbar LCS in the future. Finally, the states of Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and North Carolina had the most incidental shark permit holders in 2007. Therefore, these states would see the largest socioeconomic benefits for incidental permit holders under alternative suite 3.
The other provisions of alternative suite 3 are the same as alternative suite 4, which is the final action for this rulemaking. These provisions include maintaining the 60 mt shark display and research quota; placement of porbeagle sharks on the prohibited list; quota carryover limited to 50 percent of base quota for species not overfished; no carryover for overfished, overfishing or unknown species; sharks fins must remain on the shark; dealer reports received within 10 days of purchase; removal of regions and seasons; and limiting the shark species that can be landed recreationally.
This alternative suite was not selected as the preferred alternative primarily based on its failure to achieve the ecological objectives of this rule and its economic impacts. Despite the time/area closures, alternative suite 3 would have a smaller reduction in dead discards of dusky sharks compared to alternative suite 2 since sandbar sharks would be allowed to be retained on PLL gear under alternative suite 3.
Negative economic impacts under alternative suite 3 are expected for directed permit holders (78-percent reduction in gross revenues compared to the status quo) as a result of the four sandbar per vessel per trip retention limit. Given that retention limits for sandbar and non-sandbar LCS are significantly lower than the limit under the status quo (91 and 69-percent reduction in sandbar and non-sandbar LCS retention limits, respectively, for directed permit holders), it is anticipated that there would be no directed shark fishery as a result of alternative suite 3. While an observer program would still operate under
Alternative suite 4, the final action, establishes a program where vessels with directed or incidental shark permits could participate in a small research fishery for sandbar sharks that would harvest the entire 116.6 mt dw sandbar quota. There would be 100 percent observer coverage on each research vessel, and only vessels participating in this program could land sandbar sharks. Vessels not participating in the research program could land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks.
Alternative suite 4 was selected because it meets the objectives of this rulemaking while minimizing some of the economic impacts. Those objectives include: implement rebuilding plans for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; provide an opportunity for the sustainable harvest of blacktip sharks and other sharks, as appropriate; prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks; analyze BLL time/area closures and take necessary action, as appropriate; and improve, to the extent practicable, data collections or data collection programs. As detailed in the economic analysis in chapters 4 and 6 of Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, it is estimated that vessels in the shark research fishery could make $437,963 in gross revenues of sandbar and non-sandbar LCS landings under the adjusted quota. Since 5 to 10 vessels are anticipated to participate in the research fishery, NMFS estimates that an individual vessel could make between $87,593 (i.e., 5 boats) to $43,796 (i.e., 10 boats) in gross revenues on sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS landings. However, the vessels operating outside of the research fishery would have an adjusted regional non-sandbar LCS base quota of 187.8 mt dw in the Atlantic region and 390.5 mt dw in the Gulf of Mexico region. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to $516,285 in the Atlantic region and $1,273,269 in gross revenues in the Gulf of Mexico region. Divided by the remaining vessels it is estimated that the average gross revenues from shark per vessel would be just over $2,000 per trip.
In addition, under the final action, porbeagle sharks would be authorized in recreational and commercial fisheries, but under a reduced TAC of 11.3 mt dw. Of the TAC, 1.7 mt dw would be available for harvest in commercial fisheries. Currently, the commercial quota for porbeagle sharks is 92 mt dw per year, however, this commercial quota has never been met. NMFS set new TAC and commercial quotas for porbeagle sharks based on present effort levels. Based on quota monitoring (which includes vessel trip reports) from 2003 to 2006, on average, 3,867 lb dw (1.7 mt dw) of porbeagle sharks were landed per year. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to $7,378 in gross revenues. Since commercial fishermen would be allowed to continue to land porbeagle sharks at this level, there are no anticipated economic impacts of implementing the TAC. In addition, recreational anglers would still be allowed to land porbeagle sharks. Therefore, there are no negative economic impacts for recreational fishermen associated with the TAC.
Data indicate that the preferred alternative maintains the annual gross revenues per vessel for vessels operating in the research fishery, while allowing other vessels outside of the research fishery to generate revenues at reduced levels. For example, in the no action alternative, it was estimated that if gross revenues for directed and incidental permit holders are averaged across the approximately 296 active directed and incidental shark permit holders, then the average annual gross revenues per shark fishing vessel is just over $20,000. Using the average landings for directed permit holder from 2003 to 2005, it is estimated that the 143 active directed permit holders generated average annual gross shark revenues of just under $33,000 from sharks. Under alternative 2, the reduced gross revenues averaged across the 143 active directed permit holders are estimated to be just over $9,000 per directed shark fishing vessel and $1,221 per vessel per year for incidental permit holders that land sharks. Under alternative 3 this is reduced further to approximately $7,000 ($1,015,162 gross revenues/143 vessel) per directed shark fishing vessel per year.
Alternative suite 4 has less economic impact on shark fishermen than alternative suite 5 (discussed below), but has greater impacts in the short-run than the status quo alternative. By allowing a limited number of historical participants to continue to harvest sharks under the research fishery, NMFS ensures that data for stock assessments and life history samples would continue to be collected. After comparing the alternative suites, NMFS determined that alternative suite 4 is the alternative that best meets the objectives of this rule while minimizing the economic impacts to shark permit holders.
Alternative suite 5 would have significant economic and social impacts on a variety of small entities, including: commercial shark permit holders, shark dealers, CHB and tournament operators, gear manufacturers, bait and ice suppliers, and other secondary industries dependent on the shark fishery. The level of economic impact would be directly proportional to the amount of revenues that each entity has realized from past participation in the shark fishery. Permit holders would be impacted differently depending on the quantity of sharks landed in the past.
Vessels targeting sharks (directed permit holders) landed an average of 1,263 mt dw of LCS, 223 mt dw SCS, and 173 mt dw pelagic sharks per year between 2003 to 2005 based on shark dealer landings and effort data from the Coastal Fisheries and HMS logbooks. The gross revenues based on 2006 ex-vessel prices of these landings are estimated at $4,702,031, $681,880, and $764,512 for LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks, respectively. While it is assumed that few directed shark permit holders subsist entirely on revenues attained from the shark fishery, impacts would still be severe for those participants that depend on income from the directed shark fishery at certain times of the year. Because of the extensive economic impacts to shark directed permit holders as a result of this alternative suite, it is assumed that directed permit holders would likely pursue one of the following options as a result of closing the Atlantic shark fishery: (1) transfer fishing effort to other fisheries for which they are already permitted (snapper grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, tilefish, lobster, dolphin/wahoo, etc), (2) acquire the necessary permits to participate in other fisheries (both open access and/or limited access fisheries), or (3) relinquish all permits and leave the fishing industry.
Incidental permit holders would face negative economic and social impacts as a result of closing the Atlantic shark fishery; however, these impacts would not be as severe as those experienced by directed permit holders. It is assumed that incidental permit holders receive
This alternative suite could also have negative economic and social impacts for shark dealers as they would no longer be authorized to purchase shark products from Federally permitted shark fishermen. Shark dealers also maintain permits to purchase other regionally caught fish products. Due to the brevity of the LCS shark fishing season, which is the shark fishery that accounts for the majority of the shark product revenue due to the fin value, many dealers also get revenue from purchasing fish products other than sharks. The majority of shark dealer permit holders hold permits to purchase other fish products, including swordfish, tunas, snapper grouper, tilefish, mackerel, lobster, and dolphin/wahoo among others. It is difficult to estimate, on an individual dealer basis, the percentage of revenues received exclusively from shark products.
Shark fin dealers, specializing in the purchase of shark fins from Federal and state permitted dealers, would also experience negative social and economic impacts as a result of closing the shark fishery. These dealers receive virtually all of their income from purchasing shark fins and shipping them to exporters. Exporters then transport the fins to global and domestic markets. This alternative suite would likely force shark fin dealers to leave the industry or focus on purchasing other fishery products, resulting in significant economic impacts to the individuals involved in this trade.
It is difficult to estimate the economic and social impacts that would be experienced by various small entities that support the shark fishery, e.g., purveyors of bait, ice, fishing gear, and fishing gear manufactures. However, these impacts would likely be negative. It is difficult to estimate these impacts as it is uncertain to what extent vessels that were fishing for sharks would redistribute their fishing effort to other fisheries, or simply cease fishing operations. If the majority of vessels affected by a shark fishery closure simply displace effort to other fisheries, it is assumed that they would still be dependent on small entities for their bait, ice, and gear as these are products essential for fishing excursions targeting any species. Redistributing effort to other fisheries would mitigate negative economic impacts. However, if a significant number of vessels simply cease fishing operations or scale back considerably, then severe economic consequences would be imparted on these support industries as a result.
Reporting and observer requirements would also change under alternative suite 5. Alternative suite 5 would increase the proportion of fishermen completing the Coastal Fisheries Logbook who are then selected to report information on fish that are discarded. Currently, 20 percent of the fishermen completing this logbook are selected. This percentage would be increased to facilitate improved data available for shark interactions with longline and gillnet gear. This information would be especially useful because sharks could no longer be landed and the existing logbook only requires fishermen to provide data on landed fish. Increasing the number of fishermen who are selected to provide this data would result in negative economic and social impacts because it would require additional paperwork to be filled out. Because NMFS would close the fishery under this alternative suite, vessels would no longer be required to take an observer. Shark dealers would also no longer be required to submit dealer reports regarding sharks purchased.
Seasons and regions for the commercial Atlantic shark fishery would no longer apply as this alternative suite would close the fishery.
Closing the Atlantic recreational shark fishery would have negative economic and social impacts, particularly for CHB operators who specialize in landing sharks and operators of shark tournaments that have prize categories for landing sharks. It is difficult to estimate the number of CHB operators that specialize in shark charters as the permit covers any participant targeting swordfish, sharks, tunas, and billfish. Many CHB operators target a variety of species depending on client interests, weather, time of year, and oceanographic conditions. CHB operators specializing in shark fishing charters would have to target other HMS or non HMS species to replace revenues lost as a result of customers not being able to land sharks. However, not all customers necessarily want to land sharks. CHB operators would still be able to catch sharks; however, all sharks (regardless of species) would need to be released in a manner that maximizes their chances of survival. Catering business operations to clientele interested in catch and release fishing for sharks might mitigate some of the negative economic impacts. Shark tournaments that reward prizes for landing sharks would be negatively impacted as a result of this alternative suite. In 2007, there were 59 tournaments with prize categories for pelagic sharks and 42 (combined) tournaments for LCS and SCS. The majority of these tournaments target pelagic sharks and are held in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. These tournaments would either modify their rules to only allow points/prizes for released sharks or these tournaments would cease to exist. Economic impacts on small entities such as restaurants, hotels, gear manufacturers, retail stores selling fishing supplies, and marinas in the vicinity of where these tournaments are held would also experience negative economic impacts.
HMS Angling permit holders would also experience negative impacts, despite the fact that they would still be able to catch and release sharks. Landings would not be permitted by any recreational anglers as a result of this alternative suite.
Closing the Atlantic shark fishery would have negative economic impacts on global shark fin markets. As a result of this alternative suite, U.S. flagged vessels would no longer be able to contribute to the global demand for shark fins. This would disadvantage U.S. shark fishermen as global markets would likely need to purchase their shark fins from other markets. However, the United States is not a significant producer of shark products globally. Based on data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), less than one percent of global shark landings occur in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean.
While alternative suite 5 would meet the objectives of this rule, it would have the highest negative economic impacts of the alternatives considered. There would be significant reductions in revenues for shark dealers and fishing vessels involved in the shark fishery. Some small businesses dependent on commercial shark fishing may cease operating as a result of prohibiting the
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The Agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. Copies of the compliance guide for this final rule are available (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(9) Fail to maintain a shark in the form specified in §§ 600.1204(h) and 635.30(c) of this chapter.
(h) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark limited access permit and who lands shark in or from the U.S. EEZ in an Atlantic coastal port must comply with regulations found at § 635.30(c) of this chapter.
(j) No person aboard a vessel that has been issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark limited access permit shall possess on board shark fins without the fins being naturally attached to the corresponding carcass(es), although sharks may be dressed at sea.
16 U.S.C. 971
(a) * * *
(5)
(g) * * *
(2)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Dealers that have been issued or should have been issued an Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks dealer permit under § 635.4 must submit to NMFS all reports required under this section. All reports must be species-specific, must include information about all HMS landed, regardless of where harvested or whether the vessel is federally permitted under § 635.4 and, for sharks, must specify the total shark fin weight separately from the weight of the shark carcass. As stated in § 635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with these recordkeeping and reporting requirements may result in the existing dealer permit being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial of any permit applications.
(ii) Reports of Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks received by dealers from U.S. vessels, as defined under § 600.10 of this chapter, on the first through the 15
(iv) The dealer may mail or fax such report to an address designated by NMFS or may hand-deliver such report to a state or Federal fishery port agent designated by NMFS. If the dealer hand-delivers the report to a port agent, the dealer must deliver such report for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or sharks no later than the prescribed received-by date for the reporting period, as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area from January 1 through July 31 each calendar year;
(ii) The areas designated at § 622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this chapter, year-round; and
(iii) The areas described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section, year-round.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(3) * * *
(ii)
(c)
(2) In addition to the shark listed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one bonnethead shark may be retained per person per trip. Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one bonnethead shark per person may be possessed on board a vessel.
(3) No prohibited sharks, including parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this part under prohibited sharks, may be retained regardless of where harvested.
(4) The recreational retention limit for sharks applies to any person who fishes in any manner, except to persons aboard a vessel that has been issued an Atlantic
(a)
(2) From July 24, 2008 through December 31, 2012, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed LAP for sharks and that has been issued a valid shark research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, may retain, possess, or land no more than 33 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip if the fishery is open per § 635.27 and § 635.28. Such persons may not retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks. As of January 1, 2013, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed LAP for sharks and that has been issued a shark research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, may retain, possess, or land no more than 36 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip if the fishery is open per § 635.27 and § 635.28. Such persons may not retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks.
(3) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP for sharks and that has been issued a valid shark research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, may retain, possess, or land no more than 3 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip if the fishery is open per § 635.27 and § 635.28. Such persons may not retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks.
(4) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land SCS and pelagic sharks if the SCS or pelagic shark fishery is open per § 635.27 and § 635.28. A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP for sharks may retain, possess, or land no more than 16 SCS and pelagic sharks, combined, per trip, if the fishery is open per § 635.27 and § 635.28.
(5) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental or directed LAP for sharks may not retain, possess, land, sell, or purchase prohibited sharks, including any parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this part under prohibited sharks.
(6) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued either an incidental or directed LAP for sharks, and who decides to retain sharks, must retain, subject to the trip limits, all dead, legal-sized, non-prohibited sharks that are brought onboard the vessel and cannot replace those sharks with sharks of higher quality or size that are caught later in the trip. Any fish that are to be released cannot be brought onboard the vessel and must be released in the water in a manner that maximizes survival.
(b) * * *
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(B) Except for non-sandbar LCS landed by a vessels issued a valid shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer onboard, any non-sandbar LCS reported by dealers located in the Florida Keys areas or in the Gulf of Mexico will be counted against the non-sandbar LCS Gulf of Mexico regional quota. Except for non-sandbar LCS landed by a vessels issued a valid shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer onboard, any non-sandbar LCS reported by dealers located in the Atlantic region will be counted against the non-sandbar LCS Atlantic regional quota. Non-sandbar LCS landed by a vessel issued a valid shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer onboard will be counted against the non-sandbar LCS research fishery quota using scientific observer reports.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(A)
(B)
(2)
(b) * * *
(1) If quota is available as specified by a publication in the
(2) When NMFS calculates that the fishing season landings for sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks other than blue or porbeagle sharks has reached or is projected to reach 80 percent of the available quota as specified in § 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for that shark species group and/or region that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via a notice in the
(3) When the fishery for a shark species group and/or region is closed, a fishing vessel, issued an Atlantic Shark LAP pursuant to § 635.4, may not possess or sell a shark of that species group and/or region, except under the conditions specified in § 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and an NMFS-approved observer is onboard. A shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4, may not purchase or receive a shark of that species group and/or region from a vessel issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess sharks that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage. Additionally, a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess non-sandbar sharks that were harvested by a vessel issued a valid shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer onboard as long as the non-sandbar shark research fishery is open. Under a closure for a shark species group, a shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, in accordance with state regulations, purchase or receive a shark of that species group if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued a Shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4. Additionally, under a closure for a shark species group and/or regional closure, a
(c) * * *
(1) Notwithstanding the regulations issued at part 600, subpart N of this chapter, a person who owns or operates a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP must maintain all the shark fins including the tail on the shark carcass until the shark has been offloaded from the vessel. While sharks are on board and when sharks are being offloaded, persons issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP are subject to the regulations at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter.
(2) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has a valid Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP must maintain the shark intact through offloading except that the shark may be dressed. All fins, including the tail, must remain naturally attached to the shark through offloading. While on the vessel, fins may be sliced so that the fin can be folded along the carcass for storage purposes as long as the fin remains naturally attached to the carcass via at least a small portion of uncut skin. The fins and tail may only be removed from the carcass once the shark has been landed and offloaded.
(3) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP and who lands sharks in an Atlantic coastal port must have all fins and carcasses weighed and recorded on the weighout slips specified in § 635.5(a)(2) and in accordance with regulations at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter. Persons may not possess any shark fins not naturally attached to a shark carcass on board a fishing vessel at any time.
(4) Persons aboard a vessel that does not have a commercial permit for shark must maintain a shark in or from the EEZ intact through landing with the head, tail, and all fins attached. The shark may be bled.
(c) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a vessel that possesses a shark from the management unit may sell such shark only if the vessel has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part. Persons may possess and sell a shark only when the fishery for that species group and/or region has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(4) Only dealers that have a valid shark dealer permit may purchase shark from the owner or operator of a fishing vessel. Dealers may purchase a shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part, except that dealers may purchase a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel that does not have a commercial permit for shark if that vessel fishes exclusively in state waters. Dealers may purchase a sandbar shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a valid shark research permit and who had a NMFS-approved observer onboard the vessel for the trip in which the sandbar shark was collected. Dealers may purchase a shark from an owner or operator of fishing vessel that has a permit issued under this part only when the fishery for that species group and/or region has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(a) * * *
(2) Activities subject to the provisions of this section include, but are not limited to: scientific research resulting in, or likely to result in, the take, harvest, or incidental mortality of Atlantic HMS; exempted fishing and educational activities; programs under which regulated species retained in contravention to otherwise applicable regulations may be donated through approved food bank networks; or chartering arrangements. Such activities must be authorized in writing and are subject to all conditions specified in any letter of acknowledgment, EFP, scientific research permit, display permit, chartering permit, or shark research permit issued in response to requests for authorization under this section.
(f)
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 600.745 of this chapter and other provisions of this part, a valid shark research permit is required to fish for, take, retain, or possess Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in § 635.24(a). A valid shark research permit must be on board the harvesting vessel, must be available for inspection when the shark is landed, and must be presented for inspection upon request of an authorized officer. A shark research permit is only valid for the vessel and owner(s) combination specified and cannot be transferred to another vessel or owner(s). A shark research permit is only valid for the retention limits, time, area, gear specified, and other terms and conditions as listed on the permit and only when a NMFS-approved observer is onboard. Species landed under a shark research permit shall be counted against the appropriate quota specified in § 635.27 or as otherwise provided in the shark research permit.
(3) Regardless of the number of applicants, NMFS will issue only a limited number of shark research permits depending on available quotas as described in § 635.27, research needs for stock assessments and other scientific purposes, and the number of sharks expected to be harvested by vessels issued LAPs for sharks.
(4) In addition to the workshops required under § 635.8, persons issued a shark research permit, and/or operators of vessels specified on the shark research permit, may be required to attend other workshops (e.g., shark identification workshops, captain's meeting, etc.) as deemed necessary by NMFS to ensure the collection of high quality data.
(5) Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee the permit holder that a NMFS-approved observer will be deployed on any particular trip. Rather, permit issuance indicates that a vessel is eligible for a NMFS-approved observer to be deployed on the vessel for a particular trip and that, on such observed trips, the vessel may be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in § 635.24(a).
(6) The shark research permit may be revoked, limited, or modified at any time, does not confer any right to engage in activities beyond those authorized by the permit, and does not confer any right of compensation to the holder.
(g)
(2) For the shark research permit, NMFS will publish annually, in a
(h)
(2) For chartering permits, written reports of fishing activities must be submitted to NMFS by a date specified, and to an address designated, in the terms and conditions of each chartering permit.
(3) An annual written summary report of all fishing activities, and disposition of all fish captured, under the permit must be submitted to NMFS for all EFPs, scientific research permits, display permits, and chartering permits issued under this section within 30 days after the expiration date of the permit.
(4) For shark research permits, all owners and/or operators must comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in § 635.5 per the requirement of holding a LAP for sharks.
(5) As stated in § 635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this section could result in the EFP, scientific research permit, display permit, chartering permit, or shark research permit being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial of any future applications.
(a)
(a) * * *
(2) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or land Atlantic HMS without the appropriate valid vessel permit, LAP, EFP, scientific research permit, display permit, chartering permit, or shark research permit on board the vessel, as specified in §§ 635.4 and 635.32.
(4) Sell or transfer or attempt to sell or transfer, for commercial purposes, an Atlantic tuna, shark, or swordfish other than to a dealer that has a valid dealer permit issued under § 635.4, except that this does not apply to a shark harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a permit under this part and that fishes exclusively within the waters under the jurisdiction of any state.
(6) Falsify or fail to record, report, or maintain information required to be recorded, reported, or maintained, as specified in §§ 635.5 and 635.32 or in the terms and conditions of a permit issued under § 635.4 or an EFP, scientific research permit, display permit, chartering permit, or shark research permit issued under § 635.32.
(d) * * *
(3) Retain, possess, or land a shark of a species group when the fishery for that species group and/or region is closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(4) Sell or purchase a shark of a species group when the fishery for that species group and/or region is closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(6) Fail to maintain a shark in its proper form, as specified in § 635.30(c). Fail to maintain naturally attached shark fins through offloading as specified in § 635.30(c).
(7) Sell or purchase shark fins that are disproportionate to the weight of shark
(8) Fail to have shark fins and carcasses weighed and recorded, as specified in § 635.30(c).
(10) Retain, possess, sell, or purchase a prohibited shark, including parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, as specified under §§ 635.22(c), 635.24(a), and 635.27(b), or fail to disengage any hooked or entangled prohibited shark with the least harm possible to the animal as specified at § 635.21(d).
(15) Sell or transfer or attempt to sell or transfer a shark or sharks or part of a shark or sharks in excess of the retention limits specified in § 635.24(a).
(16) Purchase, receive, or transfer or attempt to purchase, receive, or transfer a shark or sharks or part of a shark or sharks landed in excess of the retention limits specified in § 635.24(a).
(17) Replace sharks that are onboard the vessel for retention with sharks of higher quality or size that are caught later in a particular trip as specified in § 635.24(a).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent; request for applications.
NMFS announces its request for applications for the 2008 shark research fishery from commercial shark fishermen. The shark research fishery will allow for the collection of fishery-dependent data for future stock assessments while also allowing NMFS and commercial fishermen to conduct cooperative research to meet the shark research objectives for the Agency. Only commercial vessels participating in the shark research fishery would be able to land sandbar sharks. These vessels would also land non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks. Commercial vessels not participating in the shark research fishery may only land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks. Commercial shark fishermen who are interested in participating in the shark research fishery need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Permit Application in order to be considered. Generally, these permits will be valid through December 31, 2008, unless otherwise specified, subject to the terms and conditions of individual permits.
Shark Research Fishery Applications must be received no latter than 5 p.m., local time, on July 15, 2008.
Please submit completed applications to the HMS Management Division at:
• Mail: HMS Management Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
• Fax: (301) 713-1917
LeAnn Southward Hogan or Jess Beck, at (301) 713-2347 (phone) or (301) 713-1917 (fax).
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
The final rule for Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP (published in the Rules section of today's
Each year, NMFS will determine the research objectives for the upcoming shark research fishery. The research objectives are developed by a shark board, which is comprised of representatives within NMFS including representatives from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Panama City Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Narragansett Laboratory, the Southeast Regional Office of Protected Resources Division (SERO\PRD), and the HMS Management Division. The research objectives of the shark research fishery are primarily based on the research needs identified in shark stock assessments. Many of the research objectives for 2008 come from the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 11, 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment. These objectives were developed with input from non-governmental organizations, industry representatives, fishery managers, and academics present during the stock assessment workshops. In addition, the shark board identified additional needs for tagging studies, collection of genetic material, and controlled bottom longline (BLL) experiments to assess the impact of different hook types. Specifically, the research objectives for 2008 are to:
• collect reproductive and age data from sandbar sharks throughout the calendar year;
• collect reproductive and age data for Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks for determination of the reproductive cycle (i.e., annual or biennial frequency);
• collect reproductive and age data from all species of sharks for additional species-specific assessments;
• monitor the size distribution of sandbar sharks and other species captured in the fishery;
• continue on-going tagging programs for identification of migration corridors and stock structure;
• maintain time-series of abundance from previously derived indices for the shark BLL observer program;
• acquire fin-clip samples of all species for genetic analysis;
• attach satellite archival tags to endangered smalltooth sawfish to provide information on critical habitat and preferred depth;
• attach satellite archival tags to prohibited dusky sharks to provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns, and preferred depth; and,
• evaluate the effects of controlled gear experiments in order to determine the effects of potential hook changes to prohibited species interactions and fishery yields.
Shark Research Fishery Applications will only be accepted from commercial shark fishermen that hold a current directed or incidental limited access permit. The Shark Research Fishery Application includes, but is not limited to, a request for the following information: type of commercial shark permit possessed; past participation in the commercial shark fishery; past involvement and compliance with HMS observer programs per 50 CFR 635.7; past compliance with HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635; availability to participate in the shark research fishery; willingness to fish in the regions and season requested; willingness to attend necessary meetings regarding the objectives and research protocols of the shark research fishery; and willingness to carry out the research objectives of the Agency. An applicant that has been
NMFS will review all submitted applications that are deemed complete and develop a list of qualified applicants. A qualified applicant is an applicant that has submitted a complete application and has met the selection criteria detailed above. Qualified applicants are eligible to be selected by the SEFSC to participate in the shark research fishery for 2008. NMFS will provide the list of qualified applicants to the SEFSC. The SEFSC will then evaluate the list of qualified applicants and, based on the temporal and spatial needs of the research objectives, the availability of qualified applicants, and the available quota for a given year, will randomly select approximately 10 qualified applicants to conduct the prescribed research.
If deemed necessary, NMFS may hold a public meeting to allow the public to witness the selection of shark research permit recipients from the qualified applicant pool. If a public meeting is held, the public is welcome to observe the selection process, but will not be allowed to participate in or comment during the selection process. If a public meeting is deemed necessary, NMFS will announce details of a public selection meeting in a subsequent
Once the selection process is complete, NMFS will notify the selected applicants and issue the shark research fishery permits. If needed, NMFS will communicate with the shark research fishery permit holders to arrange a captain's meeting to discuss the research objectives and protocols. The shark research permit holders must contact the NMFS observer coordinator to arrange the placement of a NMFS-approved observer for each shark research trip.
A shark research permit will only be valid for the vessel and owner(s) and terms and conditions listed on the permit, and thus, cannot be transferred to another vessel or owner(s). Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee that the permit holder will be assigned a NMFS-approved observer on any particular trip. Rather, issuance indicates that a vessel may be issued a NMFS-approved observer for a particular trip, and on such trips, may be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in 50 CFR 635.24(a). The vessel would still be able to participate land non-sandbar, SCS, and pelagic sharks subject to existing retention limits on trips without a NMFS-approved observer. The shark research permit may be revoked or modified at any time and does not confer the right to engage in activities beyond those listed on the shark research fishery permit.
Commercial shark permit holders (directed and incidental) are invited to submit an application to participate in the shark research fishery on an annual basis. Permit applications can be found on the HMS Management Division's website at:
16 U.S.C. 971
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is issuing final amendments to the current Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries. This action also promulgates separate standards of performance for new, modified, or reconstructed process units at petroleum refineries. The final standards for new process units include emissions limitations and work practice standards for fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid coking units, delayed coking units, fuel gas combustion devices, and sulfur recovery plants. These final standards reflect demonstrated improvements in emissions control technologies and work practices that have occurred since promulgation of the current standards.
These final rules are effective on June 24, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the final rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 24, 2008.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Mr. Robert B. Lucas, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Categories and entities potentially regulated by these final rules include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.100 and 40 CFR 60.100a. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by August 25, 2008. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
New source performance standards (NSPS) implement CAA section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified sources.
Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application of the best system of emission reductions which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT).
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. As a result of our periodic review of the NSPS for petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J), we proposed amendments to the current standards of performance and separate standards of performance for new process units (72 FR 27278, May 14, 2007). In response to several requests, we extended the 60-day comment period from July 13, 2007, to August 27, 2007 (72 FR 35375, June 28, 2007). We also issued a notice of data availability (NODA) (72 FR 69175, December 7, 2007) to notify the public that additional information had been added to the docket; the NODA also extended the public comment period on the proposed rule to January 7, 2008. We received a total of 38 comments from refineries, industry trade associations, and consultants; State and local environmental and public health agencies; environmental groups; and members of the public during the extended comment period, and 8 additional comments on the NODA. These final rules reflect our full consideration of all of the comments we received. Detailed responses to the comments not included in this preamble are contained in the Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
We are promulgating several amendments to provisions in the existing NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. Many of these amendments are technical clarifications and corrections that are also included in the final standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. For example, we are revising the definition of “fuel gas” to indicate that vapors collected and combusted to comply with certain wastewater and marine vessel loading provisions are not considered fuel gas. Consequently, these vapors are exempt from the sulfur dioxide (SO
The final standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja include emission limits for fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU), fluid coking units (FCU), sulfur recovery plants (SRP), and fuel gas combustion devices. Subpart Ja also includes work practice standards for reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from flares, minimizing SO
As proposed, we are amending the definition of “fuel gas” to specifically exclude vapors that are collected and combusted in an air pollution control device installed to comply with a specified wastewater or marine vessel loading emissions standard. The thermal combustion control devices themselves are still considered to be affected fuel gas combustion devices if they combust other gases that meet the definition of fuel gas, and all auxiliary fuel gas fired to these devices are subject to the fuel gas limit; however, continuous monitoring is not required for the vapors collected from wastewater or marine vessel loading operations that are being incinerated because these gases are not considered to be fuel gases under the definition of “fuel gas” in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.
We are also finalizing exemptions for certain fuel gas streams from all continuous monitoring requirements. See 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Monitoring is not required for combustion in a flare of process upset gases or flaring of gases from relief valve leakage or emergency malfunctions since these streams are exempt from the standard under 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1). Additionally, monitoring is not required for inherently low sulfur fuel gas streams since the emissions generated by combusting such streams will necessarily be well below the standard. These streams include pilot gas flames, gas streams that meet commercial-grade product specifications with a sulfur content of 30 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less, fuel gases produced by process
For accuracy in the calculation of the coke burn-off rate, we are revising the coke burn-off rate equation in 40 CFR 60.106(b)(3) to be consistent with the equation in 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(4)(i) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU). This revision adds a fourth term to the coke burn-off rate equation to account for the use of O
We proposed to amend the definition of “Claus sulfur recovery plant” in 40 CFR 60.101(i) to clarify that the SRP may consist of multiple units and that primary sulfur pits are considered part of the Claus SRP consistent with the Agency's current position. Commenters expressed concern that change to a 40 CFR part 60, subpart J definition that could lead to retroactive non-compliance. We disagree with those concerns as we believe the definition as currently written provides for such coverage. Nonetheless, we are not amending this definition in the final amendments for subpart J and will continue to address individual applicability issues under our applicability determination procedures. Similarly, we proposed revisions to the subpart J definitions of “oxidation control system” and “reduction control system” in 40 CFR 60.101(j) and 40 CFR 60.101(k), respectively, to clarify that these systems were intended to recycle the sulfur back to the Claus SRP. The proposed amendments needlessly limit the types of tail gas treatment systems that can be used; therefore, we are not amending these definitions in the final amendments for subpart J.
The final amendments also include technical corrections to fix references and other miscellaneous errors in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. Table 1 of this preamble describes the miscellaneous technical corrections not previously described in this preamble that are included in the amendments to subpart J.
The final standards for new FCCU include emission limits for particulate matter (PM), SO
For PM emissions from new FCCU and new FCU, we proposed a PM limit of 0.5 pounds (lb)/1,000 lb coke burnoff in the regenerator or (if a PM continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is
Initial compliance with the PM emission limits for FCCU and FCU is determined using EPA Method 5, 5B or 5F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) instead of being restricted to only EPA Method 5 as previously proposed. Procedures for computing the PM emission rate using the total PM concentration, effluent gas flow rate, and coke burn-off rate are the same as in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, as amended. To demonstrate ongoing compliance, an owner or operator must monitor PM emission control device operating parameters and conduct annual PM performance tests, use a PM CEMS, or operate bag leak detection systems and conduct annual PM performance tests. A new alternative allows refineries with wet scrubbers as PM control devices to use the approved alternative in 40 CFR 63.1573(a) for determining exhaust gas flow rate instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). An alternative to the requirements for monitoring the pressure drop from wet scrubbers that are equipped with jet ejectors or atomizing spray nozzles is to conduct a daily check of the air or water pressure to the nozzles and record the results of each inspection. The final rule also includes procedures for establishing an alternative opacity operating limit for refiners that use continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS); this alternative is allowed only for units that choose to comply with the PM limit using cyclones. If operating parameters are used to demonstrate ongoing compliance, the owner or operator must monitor the same parameters during the initial performance test, and develop operating parameter limits for the applicable parameters. The operating limits must be based on the three-run average of the values for the applicable parameters measured over the three test runs. If ongoing compliance is demonstrated using a PM CEMS, the CEMS must meet the conditions in Performance Specification 11 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) and the quality assurance (QA) procedures in Procedure 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. The relative response audits must be conducted annually (in lieu of annual performance tests for units not employing a PM CEMS) and response correlation audits must be conducted once every 5 years.
For NO
No changes have been made to the proposed SO
No changes have been made since proposal to the CO limits. The final CO emission limit for the affected FCCU and FCU is 500 ppmv (1-hour average, dry at 0 percent excess air). Initial compliance with this emission limit is demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation for the CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) with Method 10 or 10A (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) as the reference method. For Method 10 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4), the integrated sampling technique is to be used. Ongoing compliance with this emission limit is determined on an hourly basis using the CEMS to measure CO emissions as discharged to the atmosphere. An exemption from monitoring may be requested for an FCCU or FCU if the owner or operator can demonstrate that “average CO emissions” are less than 50 ppmv (dry basis). As proposed, units that are exempted from the CO monitoring requirements must comply with control device operating parameter limits.
For new, modified, and reconstructed SRP with a capacity greater than 20 long tons per day (LTD) (large SRP), we proposed a limit of 250 ppmv total sulfur (combined SO
In this final rule, we are adopting the current limits in subpart J (which include separate emission limits for oxidative and reductive systems) for affected large SRP. For these affected SRP, the final limits for SRP having an oxidation control system or a reduction control system followed by incineration is 250 ppmv (dry basis) of SO
Initial compliance with the emission limit for large SRP is demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation for the SO
Ongoing compliance with the SO
Initial and ongoing compliance requirements for small SRP are the same as for large SRP.
In the subpart Ja proposal, we divided fuel gas combustion devices into two separate affected sources: “process heaters” and “other fuel gas combustion devices.” In response to comments, we have eliminated the proposed definition of “other fuel gas combustion devices” and revised the standards to either refer to fuel gas combustion devices, which include process heaters, or to refer specifically to process heaters. This revision makes the definition of “fuel gas combustion devices” consistent with subpart J. Based on public comments, we have also added a definition of “flare” as a subcategory of fuel gas combustion devices. The owner or operator of an affected flare must comply with the fuel gas combustion device requirements as well as specific provisions for flares as described in section III.E of this preamble.
We proposed a primary sulfur dioxide emission limit for fuel gas combustion devices of 20 ppmv or less SO
Initial compliance with the 20 ppmv SO
Similar to clarifications for 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, the definition of “fuel gas” includes exemptions for vapors collected and combusted in an air pollution control device installed to comply with specified wastewater or marine vessel loading provisions. We are also streamlining the process for an owner or operator to demonstrate that a fuel gas stream not explicitly exempted from continuous monitoring is inherently low sulfur.
For new, modified, or reconstructed process heaters with a rated capacity greater than 20 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), we proposed a NO
We proposed three work practice standards to reduce SO
We are promulgating a work practice standard for delayed coking units and modified requirements to reduce emissions from flares. The final work practice standard for delayed cokers requires affected delayed coking units to depressure to 5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) during reactor vessel depressuring. We are requiring the exhaust gases to be vented to the fuel gas system as proposed or to a flare.
To reduce SO
In response to comments regarding the work practice standards for fuel gas producing units and associated difficulties with no routine flaring, we re-evaluated the work practice standards and have decided not to promulgate a work practice standard for fuel gas producing units. Rather, we have decided to define a flare as an affected facility and adopt regulations applicable to it. Therefore, we are not promulgating the proposed definition of “fuel gas producing unit” and the proposed requirement for “no routine flaring.” Instead, we are promulgating the following requirements for flares that become affected facilities after June 24, 2008: (1) Flare fuel gas flow rate monitoring; (2) a flare fuel gas flow rate limit; and (3) a flare management plan. Affected flares cannot exceed a flow rate of 250,000 standard cubic feet per day (scfd) on a 30-day rolling average basis. In cases where the flow would exceed this value, the owner or operator would install a flare gas recovery system or implement other methods to reduce flaring from the affected flare. To demonstrate compliance with the flow rate limitations, flow rate monitors must be installed and operated. Newly constructed and reconstructed flares must comply with the flow rate limitations and the monitoring requirements immediately upon startup. Modified flares must comply with the flow rate limitations and the associated monitoring provisions no later than 1 year after the flare becomes an affected facility. A provision is provided for an exclusion from the flow limitation for times when the refinery can demonstrate that the refinery produces more fuel gas than it needs to fuel the refinery combustion devices (
Because affected flares are also affected fuel gas combustion devices, the root cause analysis for SO
Existing affected facilities that commence modification or reconstruction after May 14, 2007, are subject to the final standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. A modification is any physical or operational change to an existing affected facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies (see 40 CFR 60.14). Changes to an existing affected facility that do not result in an increase in the emission rate, as well as certain changes that have been exempted under the General Provisions (see 40 CFR 60.14(e)), are not considered modifications.
The intermittent operation of a flare makes it difficult to use the criteria of 40 CFR 60.14 to determine when a flare is modified; therefore, we have specified in the final rule the criteria that define a modification to a flare. A flare is considered to be modified if: (1) Any piping from a refinery process unit or fuel gas system is newly connected to the flare or (2) the flare is physically altered to increase flow capacity. See section IV.I of this preamble for further explanation on the change in affected source from a fuel gas producing unit to the flare.
Petroleum refinery process units are subject to the final standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja if they meet the criteria under the reconstruction provisions, regardless of changes in emission rate. Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing facility such that (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards (40 CFR 60.15).
As previously noted, we received a total of 46 comments during the public comment periods associated with the proposed rule and NODA. These comments were received from refineries, industry trade associations, and consultants; State and local environmental and public health agencies; environmental groups; and members of the public. In response to these public comments, most of the cost and emission reduction impact estimates were recalculated, resulting in several changes to the final amendments and new standards. The major comments and our responses are
In responding to the public comments, we re-evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of the control options and re-evaluated our BDT determinations. In our BDT determinations, we took all relevant factors into account consistent with other Agency decisions. It is important to note that, due to the different health and welfare effects associated with different pollutants, the acceptable cost-effectiveness value of a control option is pollutant dependent. These pollutant-specific factors were considered along with other factors in our BDT determinations.
Commenters stated that EPA should only impose the more stringent emission limits on new construction because it is much more difficult and costly to meet the proposed emission limits for modified or reconstructed equipment. Commenters suggested that if EPA does include more stringent limits on modifications, it should exclude certain actions (like projects implemented to meet consent decree requirements) from the definition of a modification.
Several commenters suggested that the costs in Table 11 of the proposal preamble are significantly underestimated. Commenters contended that the single “model plant” approach used in EPA's cost analysis does not realistically consider important factors such as the inherent sulfur content of the feed, partial-burn versus full-burn regeneration, FCCU/regenerator size, and sources that are already well-controlled due to other regulations. Commenters asserted that the purchased equipment costs escalated from estimates that are 20 to 30 years old are underestimated. Several commenters provided estimates of costs and emission reductions for several actual projects, which they stated indicate that EPA's costs are significantly underestimated and that the proposed standards are much less cost-effective than presented by EPA.
A number of commenters asserted that the PM standards should be based on EPA Methods 5B or 5F (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3), and not on EPA Method 5 of Appendix A-3 to part 60. According to these commenters, the achievability of the proposed 0.5 lb/1,000 lb coke burn PM limit based on EPA Method 5 is questionable because there are inadequate data on FCCU using EPA Method 5, and controlling combined condensable and filterable PM to the 0.5 lb/1,000 lb coke burn level has not been demonstrated to be cost-effective.
On the other hand, several commenters stated that any PM limit must include condensable and filterable PM as condensable PM account for a large portion of refinery PM emissions and all condensable PM is PM that is less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM
In our revised analysis, we considered three options for PM: (1) Maintain the existing subpart J standard of 1.0 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn-off (filterable PM as measured by Method 5B or 5F); (2) 0.5 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn-off (filterable PM as measured by Method 5B or 5F of Appendix A-3 to part 60); and (3) 0.5 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn-off (filterable PM as measured by Method 5 of Appendix A-3 to part 60). Similar to the analysis for the proposed standards, costs and emission reductions for each option were estimated as the increment between complying with subpart J and subpart Ja. We note that none of the available data suggest that a 0.5 lb/1,000 lb coke burn emission limit that includes both filterable and condensable PM as measured using EPA Method 202 is achievable in practice for the full range of facilities using BDT controls, so we disagree with the comments suggesting this level is appropriate to consider as an option for a total PM limit in this rulemaking.
Option 1 includes the same emissions and requirements for PM as the current 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, so it will achieve no additional emissions reductions. The PM limit in Option 2 is the same numerical limit that was proposed in subpart Ja, but the PM emissions are determined using Methods 5B and 5F (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3). These test methods are commonly used for PM tests of FCCU and are the methods that were used to generate a majority of the test data we reviewed. Option 3 is a limit of 0.5 lb/1,000 lb coke burn using Method 5 and is the performance level that was proposed for subpart Ja. The impacts of these three options for new FCCU are presented in Table 2 to this preamble; the impacts for modified and reconstructed FCCU are presented in Table 3 to this preamble.
The available data and impacts for the options considered suggest that BDT for new FCCU is different than BDT for modified and reconstructed FCCU. For new FCCU, the costs for Option 2 are reasonable compared to the emission reduction achieved. The incremental cost between Option 2 and Option 3 of $11,000 per ton PM-fine would generally be considered reasonable, but there are uncertainties in the achievability of Option 3. The estimated PM emission reduction achieved by Option 3 compared to Option 2 equals the amount of sulfates and other condensable PM between 250 °F and 320 °F that would be measured by Method 5 but not Method 5B or 5F (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3). Additionally, available test data indicate that electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and wet scrubbers can reduce total filterable PM to 0.5 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn or less, as measured by Method 5-equivalent test methods. Although there were few test data points using Method 5-equivalent test methods, we concluded at proposal that both electrostatic precipitators and wet scrubbers can achieve this level of PM emissions. However, the data supporting Option 3 are not extensive, and it is unclear at this time whether a limit of 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) could be met by all configurations of FCCU. In addition, while the Agency supports reducing condensable PM emissions, the amount of condensable PM captured by Method 5 is small relative to methods that specifically target condensable PM, such as Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M). We prefer to develop a single performance standard that considers all condensable PM rather than implementing phased standards targeting different fractions of condensable PM. Such an approach would be costly and inefficient. Therefore, we conclude that Option 2, control of PM emissions (as measured by Methods 5B and 5F of Appendix A-3 to part 60) to 0.5 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn or less, is BDT for newly constructed FCCU. This option achieves PM emission reductions of 240 tons per year (tons/yr) from a baseline of 910 tons/yr at a cost of $5,600 per ton of PM.
For modified and reconstructed FCCU, Option 1 is the baseline level of control established by the existing requirements of subpart J. It will achieve no additional cost or emission reduction. The overall costs and the incremental costs for Options 2 and 3 are reasonable compared to the PM emission reduction; however, as with new FCCU, the performance of Option 3 has not been demonstrated, so it is rejected. Most of the existing FCCU that could become subject to subpart Ja through modification or reconstruction are either already subject to subpart J or are covered by the consent decrees. The consent decrees are generally based on the existing subpart J. Industry has made significant investments in complying with these subpart J requirements which may be abandoned if they become subject to subpart Ja. In addition, the additional costs could create a disincentive to modernize FCCU to make them more energy efficient or to produce more refined products. For these reasons, we reject Option 2 for modified or reconstructed FCCU and conclude that control of PM emissions (as measured by Methods 5B and 5F of Appendix A-3 to part 60) is 1.0 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn or less is BDT for reconstructed and modified FCCU.
One commenter supported the proposed SO
Option 1 includes the same emissions and requirements as the current 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, so it will achieve no additional emissions reductions. Based on information provided by vendors and data submitted by petroleum refiners, Option 2 can be met with catalyst additives or a wet scrubber. Of 38 FCCU currently subject to a 50/25 ppmv SO
The data in the record suggest that all systems with wet scrubbers can meet the 50/25 ppmv SO
Based on the data we reviewed to select the options and the estimated impacts of those options, we conclude that Option 2, control of SO
One commenter stated that selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and catalyst additives have not been demonstrated over significant periods of operational life. Commenters also cited environmental side-effects, such as the generation of ammonia compounds that contribute to condensable PM emissions, as a reason not to require these types of controls. Commenters also asserted that technologies like flue gas recirculation or advanced burner design are typically only cost-effective for new units and may be technically infeasible for existing FCCU.
One commenter suggested that if a limit is necessary for modified or reconstructed FCCU, recent catalyst additive trials support an emission limit of approximately 150 ppmv on a 7-day rolling average; this limit would only be achievable if a 24-hour CO averaging time was provided since lowering NO
Other commenters supported the inclusion of a NO
To ensure that we addressed the commenters' concerns, we re-evaluated the impacts for FCCU NO
Options 1 and 2 provide cost-effective NO
In evaluating these options, we also considered the secondary impacts. In addition to the direct PM impacts of SNCR and SCR, SCR and LoTOx
Based on the impacts shown in Table 5 and Table 6, and taking secondary impacts into account, we conclude that BDT is Option 2, a NO
The commenters noted that the impacts analysis performed for the FCU has shortcomings similar to those in the impacts analysis for FCCU (
In addition to revising our impact analysis, we also collected additional source test data from the one FCU operating a newly installed wet scrubber system to better characterize the control system's performance. At proposal, we had one FCU source test from this source, which suggested that the FCU wet scrubber could meet a PM limit of 0.5 lb/1,000 coke burn. However, following proposal, we received an additional performance test for this same FCU wet scrubber with an emission rate between 0.5 and 1.0 lb/1,000 lb coke burn. There was no indication of unusual performance during either of these two tests, so we conclude that these tests demonstrate the variability of the emission source and control system. Based on the available data, therefore, we conclude that an appropriate PM performance level to consider for a BDT analysis is 1.0 lb/1,000 lb coke burn using EPA Method 5B (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) for a FCU with a wet scrubber. We also conclude that the PM emission limit initially proposed for FCU had not been adequately demonstrated as an emission limit with which one must comply at all times.
Using our revised model FCU and based on the additional source test data, we re-evaluated BDT for PM and SO
One commenter indicated that we should consider the costs of a regenerative wet scrubber. This type of system is not needed in most applications; however, in the event such a system were needed, we estimated the cost of a regenerative wet scrubber to meet Option 2. The results of this analysis are also provided in Table 7 as Option 2a. As presented in Table 7, even under the most conservative assumptions the costs associated with the PM and SO
Based on the available technology and the costs presented in Table 7 to this preamble, we conclude that BDT is Option 2, which requires technology that reduces PM emissions to 1.0 lb/1,000 of coke burn and reduces SO
One commenter supported the co-proposal that no new NO
The costs for Option 1 and Option 2 are commensurate with the emission reductions, but the incremental impacts for Option 3 are not reasonable, as shown in Table 8. Option 3 achieves an additional 90 tons per year NO
The estimated fifth-year emission reductions and costs for new SRP are summarized in Table 9 to this preamble; the impacts for modified and reconstructed SRP are summarized in Table 10 to this preamble. These values reflect the impacts only for small SRP; there are no additional cost impacts for large Claus units because they would already have to comply with the existing standards in subpart J.
The costs for Option 2 are reasonable considering the emission reductions achieved, but the incremental impacts shown in Table 9 and Table 10 for Option 3 are beyond the costs that the Agency believes are reasonable for these small units to achieve an additional 100 tons per year of SO
We note that we are also revising the format of the standard in response to public comments in terms of sulfur outlet concentrations. Based on the Option 2 BDT selection of a recovery efficiency of 99 percent, the emission limit for small SRP is either 2,500 ppmv SO
Comment: Several commenters stated that the 80 ppmv NO
Other commenters stated that alternative monitoring options should be provided to small fuel gas combustion devices due to the high costs of CEMS relative to the emissions from the small devices. One commenter suggested an exemption from the fuel gas monitoring requirements for process heaters less than 50 MMBtu/hr. Another commenter recommended an exemption from the fuel gas monitoring requirements for process heaters less than 40 MMBtu/hr as used by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The estimated fifth-year emission reductions and costs for each option for new process heaters are summarized in Table 11 of this preamble; impacts for modified and reconstructed process heaters are summarized in Table 12 of this preamble. Similar to the proposal analysis, we considered LNB, ULNB, flue gas recirculation, SCR, SNCR, and LoTOx
Based on the impacts in Table 11 and Table 12, the costs of Options 1 and 2 are reasonable compared to the emission reductions. The incremental cost between Options 2 and 3 of almost $40,000/ton of NO
Several commenters objected to the addition of the 60 ppmv H
A number of commenters particularly opposed the proposed revision to include TRS limits for fuel gas produced from coking units or any fuel gas mixed with fuel gas produced from coking units. One commenter noted that some State and local agencies have specific TRS standards, but these requirements were not based on a BDT assessment. According to commenters, EPA has included no technical basis for the achievability of the TRS fuel gas standard or explanation of why control of TRS is limited to fuel gas generated by coking units. The commenters recommended that EPA postpone adoption of a TRS limit until it has gathered and evaluated adequate data to conclude that the limit is technically feasible and cost effective.
Commenters stated that EPA did not address the cost-effectiveness and non-air quality impacts of the TRS standards and did not define BDT for the removal of TRS. One commenter stated that without an established
One commenter provided an example of a treatment system installed to meet a facility-wide fuel gas total sulfur standard of 40 ppmv; the commenter estimated the capital cost of the entire system to be $150 million. The commenter also indicated that low-BTU gas from flexicoking units would need to be specially treated at a capital cost of $61 million to achieve a total sulfur content of less than 150 ppmv, and the treatment would increase energy consumption, resulting in increases in NO
Several commenters stated that the original BDT determination was based on amine scrubbing of H
A few commenters noted that, as H
Based on the public comments and additional data, we revisited the BDT determination and assessed three options for increasing SO
Overall costs for Options 1 and 2 are reasonable compared to the emission reduction achieved for new, modified and reconstructed fuel gas combustion devices. We further evaluated the incremental costs and reductions between the three options and found that they were reasonable for Options 1 and 2, while the incremental cost for Option 3 is not. While Option 3 provides significant additional SO
We note that although we have determined that Option 3 is not BDT and we will not limit the amount of SO
A number of commenters generally supported the intent to reduce flaring and the idea of SSM plans to address flaring during planned startups and shutdowns (one commenter also included combustion of high sulfur-containing fuel gases during a malfunction), flare management plans, and RCA for flare events in excess of 500 lb/day. However, they opposed the work practice standard for elimination of routine flaring and the proposed creation of fuel gas producing units for subpart Ja. The commenters stated that the definition of “fuel gas producing unit” is overly broad, making it difficult to determine what constitutes a modification or reconstruction, and the proposed work practice standard for these units is infeasible, unnecessary, and not cost-effective. Facility operators and regulators would have difficulty discerning if a flaring event was caused by an affected fuel gas producing unit or a unit not subject to the standard. One commenter indicated that there is no
Commenters recommended that the affected source be the flare which is already subject to the standard as a fuel gas combustion device. The commenters suggested that for each affected flare, the facility would develop a written Flare Management Plan designed to minimize
One commenter suggested that the work practices language should be clarified to indicate that routing offgas to the flare system would be acceptable if the system was equipped with a flare gas recovery system. The prohibition should be specific to the flare itself as some flare systems are equipped with recovery compressors, the use of which should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
Commenters stressed the need for flares as safety devices; any flare minimization program must not interfere with the ability of the refinery owner or operator to use flares for safety reasons. The commenters stated that “routine” flaring cannot be adequately defined in practice; therefore, restrictions on “routine” flaring will lead to unsafe operations in attempts to avoid enforcement actions. The commenters requested that EPA include language in the regulation, consistent with the preamble discussion, that: “Nothing in this rule should be construed to compromise refinery operations and practices with regard to safety.”
One commenter indicated that the proposed work practice standards for “no routine flaring” interfere with flare minimization plans implemented in response to consent decrees. The proposed work practice standard could be interpreted as prohibiting flaring during start-up and shutdown, and EPA has not determined this to be BDT. The commenter stated that the BAAQMD analysis applies to eliminating flaring during normal operation [similar to proposed § 60.103a(b)], not during start-up and shutdown as in proposed § 60.103a(a). The commenter provided cost estimates for one refinery to install a recovery system to eliminate flaring during start-up and shutdowns; the costs ranged from $200,000 to $800,000 per ton of VOC reduced and higher for other criteria pollutants. Therefore, they contend § 60.103a(a) should clearly exclude start-up and shutdown gases.
A few commenters provided overall project costs for flare gas recovery projects indicating the annual costs are higher than those in the analysis supporting the proposed work practice. One commenter stated that EPA underestimated the cost of flare gas recovery systems and, given the uncertainty in emission reductions, contended that flare gas recovery systems for the no-flaring option are not cost-effective within the NSPS context. The commenter also stated that the regulation should include maintenance provisions for flare gas recovery systems (that allow flaring) during times of routine and non-routine maintenance, as no redundant capacity within the flare system exists.
A number of commenters provided an alternative to EPA's proposed work practice standards. The suggestions included a 500 lb/day SO
There are three general work practice standards that were proposed for “fuel gas producing units,” which may be summarized as follows: (1) The “no routine flaring” requirement; (2) flare minimization plan for start-up, shutdown, and malfunction events; and (3) a root-cause analysis for SO
Option 1 is no additional standards for flares. In Option 2, any routine emissions event or any process start-up, shutdown, upset or malfunction that causes a discharge into the atmosphere more than 500 pounds per day of SO
Option 3 includes: (1) The SO
Option 4 is identical to Option 3 except that flaring is limited to 50,000 scfd. This level is estimated to be a baseline level that accounts for the flow requirement needed to maintain safe operations of the flare (
It is anticipated that a flare gas recovery system will be used to comply with Options 3 and 4 when a flare is currently used on a continuous basis, and the recovered flare gas offsets natural gas purchases. The cost-effectiveness of the flare gas recovery system is primarily dependent on the quantity of gas that the system can recover. Many refineries have already implemented similar work practices through consent decrees and local rules (BAAQMD and SCAQMD), and these requirements have had a demonstrated reduction in flaring events. Flare gas recovery will reduce SO
Impacts for each of the four options are based on estimates of current flaring quantities and include the root cause analysis, flare management plan, and flare gas recovery systems when needed. The impacts for each option for new flares are presented in Table 15 to this preamble; impacts for modified and reconstructed flares are presented in Table 16 to this preamble.
Based on these impacts and consideration of technically feasible operating practices, we conclude that BDT is Option 3. Option 3 includes a set of work practice standards that requires root cause analysis for a discharge into the atmosphere in excess of 500 pounds per day of SO
The flare gas minimization requirements included in the final standards are important to reduce criteria pollutant emissions and conserve energy. However, we recognize that owners and operators also need to be able to make quick changes to existing process units or flare systems to avoid unsafe conditions. It could take an owner or operator more time to implement the flare requirements, especially flow monitoring and any physical changes needed to comply with the limit on flow to the flare, than it took to implement the change to the flare that caused it to be an affected facility. There is the potential for serious safety concerns if the owner or operator must wait until compliance has been achieved with all of the flare gas minimization requirements prior to venting explosive vapors to the flare or modifying the flare system, such as adding a knockout pot for safety reasons. Moreover, avoiding unsafe conditions by requiring immediate shutdown of all process units connected to the potentially affected flare while the owner or operator takes steps to comply with the final provisions specific to flare gas minimization results in additional emissions, significant costs, and large lost production of refined products. By providing 1 year for modified flares to comply with these flare gas minimization provisions, refinery owners and operators have sufficient time to coordinate the installation of the flow rate and sulfur content monitors, to take whatever steps necessary to meet the flow limitations, to develop and implement the flare management plan, and to make other modifications, if needed, regarding safety and maintenance considerations for other process equipment tied to the flare.
Considering the cost and the energy penalty from the reduction in refined products (
A flare is considered to be modified in one of two ways. First, a flare is considered to be modified when any piping from a refinery process unit or fuel gas system is newly connected to the flare. This new piping could allow additional gas to be sent to the flare, consequently increasing emissions from the flare. Second, a flare is considered to be modified if that flare is physically altered to increase flow capacity.
While in most cases an affected facility must comply with the final standard if it commences construction, reconstruction or modification after the proposal date, section 111(a)(2) of the CAA also provides that in certain circumstances such a source only need comply with the standard if it commences construction after the final date. Given the number of changes between proposal and final, we have concluded that this is one of the rare cases in which the final, rather than proposal, date applies.
In this case, we are promulgating a newly defined affected facility, adding a new provision specifically defining what constitutes a modification of a flare, adding several new requirements, and adding a definition of a flare. All of these changes significantly alter what would be an affected facility and the obligations of the affected facility for purposes of reducing flaring. Furthermore, while some of the requirements that were proposed for the fuel gas producing unit were transferred to the flare as an affected source, the scope of these requirements changed significantly when they were applied to a flare rather than a fuel gas producing unit. Specifically, under the proposal, only the gas stream from the modified fuel gas producing unit was barred from routine flaring. Under the final rule, however all of the units connected to the flare are now addressed, not just the fuel gas producing unit that was new, modified, or reconstructed.
Accordingly, we are providing in the final standards that only those flares commencing construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 24, 2008 must meet the requirements in subpart Ja. Flares
One commenter supported inclusion of a coke drum pressure limit above which the coke drum exhaust gases must be sent to a recovery system, disagreed that it is technically infeasible to divert emissions for recovery at pressures below 5 psig, and urged EPA to require venting until the pressure drops below 2 psig. The commenter recently issued a permit including the 2 psig level, and although the modification has not been completed, the commenter believes the requirement is technically feasible.
A number of commenters objected to the finding that BDT is to depressure delayed coking units to the fuel gas system down to 5 psig. Commenters provided examples of coking units whose current mode of operations (
Based on these impacts and consideration of technically feasible operating practices, we confirmed our conclusion at proposal that BDT is depressurization down to 5 psig, or Option 2. For new delayed coking units, this option achieves SO
The commenter is incorrect in asserting that EPA uses any other definition for small refiner than the SBA definition when conducting its RFA/SBREFA analysis in other rulemakings. EPA consistently uses the SBA definition of a small refiner for such purposes. However, in promulgating regulations, EPA may define a small refiner differently when deciding what standards and requirements apply to these facilities. For example, in the fuel standards promulgated by EPA (
Two commenters cited the Supreme Court decision in
Another commenter contended that while the decision in
Section 111(b)(1)(B) imposes two obligations upon EPA for a source category listed under section 111(b)(1)(A). First, within 1 year of listing a source category, section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the Administrator to “publish proposed regulations, establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources” within such category. After providing “interested persons an opportunity for written comment on such proposed regulations,” EPA must then “promulgate, within one year after such publication, such standards” as the Administrator “deems appropriate.” The Agency has always interpreted this initial requirement as providing the Administrator with significant flexibility in determining which pollutants are appropriate for regulation under section 111(b)(1)(B). See
Second, the statute requires that:
“The Administrator shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise such standards following the procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards. Notwithstanding the requirements of the previous sentence, the Administrator need not review any such standard if the Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of such standard.”
Nothing in the 8-year review provision mandates that EPA include a new standard of performance for an air pollutant not already covered by the
EPA has promulgated new performance standards for pollutants not previously covered concurrent with some previous 8-year review rulemakings. See 52 FR 24672, 24710 (July 1, 1987) (considering PM
In this instance, it is reasonable for EPA not to promulgate performance standards for GHG emissions as part of this 8-year review cycle. We believe that the nature of GHG emissions renders them readily distinguishable from other air pollutants for which we have previously promulgated new performance standards concurrent with an 8-year review of the existing standards. Indeed, GHG emissions present issues that we have never had to address in the context of even an initial NSPS rulemaking for a source category. These differences warrant proceeding initially through a more deliberate process,
In contrast to those circumstances, the regulation of GHG emissions raises numerous issues that are not well suited to initial resolution in a rulemaking directed at an individual source category. To that end, as Administrator Johnson announced on March 27, 2008, in letters to Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative John Dingell, it is his intent to issue an ANPR in the very near future that explores and seeks public comment on the many complex interconnections between the relevant sections of the Clean Air Act, including section 111, and lays the foundation for a comprehensive path forward with respect to regulation of all GHG.
We have previously noted that at this stage it is most appropriate to address these complexities in an ANPR addressing a variety of interconnected statutory provisions. In his April 10, 2008, testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, further elaborated on the reasons for and anticipated content of an ANPR and discussed some of these complexities. For example, he noted the potential complexities resulting from implementation of the PSD preconstruction review permitting program:
For PSD purposes, major stationary sources are those with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of a regulated air pollutant in the case of certain statutorily-listed source categories, and 250 tons per year in the case of all other source categories. New large schools, nursing homes, and hospitals could be considered a “major source” under this section of the Clean Air Act. For modifications, only those that increase
As noted previously, PSD sources are required to install best available control technology (BACT). BACT must be at least as stringent as any applicable NSPS, and is to reflect the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable for such a facility, taking into account energy, environment and economic impacts and other costs.
Controlling GHG emissions under any section of the Clean Air Act could significantly increase the number of stationary sources subject to PSD permitting.
Because CO
Currently, our best estimate of the potential impact of including GHG in the PSD program is that the number of PSD permits issued annually nationwide could rise by an order of magnitude above the current 200-300 a year. Such estimates are subject to significant uncertainty. At present, we do not have comprehensive information on GHG emissions from the many categories of stationary sources of such emissions; instead we have relied on available information and general engineering estimates.
Such a broadening of the PSD program could pose significant implementation issues for covered facilities (particularly newly covered facilities) and permitting agencies. EPA is examining the scope of these potential difficulties and whether, for GHG, the program could be limited to larger sources, at least temporarily, in view of the very substantial increase in administrative burden that might otherwise occur. However, at present it is unclear as to whether EPA has the legal discretion to exempt sources above the statutory thresholds. In addition, EPA is exploring concepts for streamlining implementation of the PSD program for smaller sources, such as guidance on general permits or source definitions for BACT determinations and model permits for use by permitting agencies. EPA will address permitting issues in greater detail in the planned ANPR.
Given the complexity of PSD issues arising from regulation of GHG emissions, among other complex issues of regulating a pollutant—particularly a pollutant global in nature—for the first time under the CAA, it is reasonable for the Agency to proceed first by evaluating these issues, and other potential complexities, in the previously announced ANPR rather than by taking action to promulgate performance standards for GHG emissions in this rulemaking.
In addition to the reasons set forth above, it is appropriate for EPA to decline to promulgate performance standards for GHG emissions concurrent with this 8-year review as section 111(b)(1)(B) does not require that the Agency revise the standards when essential information becomes available too late in the review period. The 8-year review provision itself conditions the need to review a standard on “readily available information on the efficacy of such standard.” CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). The legislative history of the 1970 CAA predecessor for the review provision also states that the review obligation depends on the availability of “new technology processes or operating methods.” 1970 Sen. Comm. Rep. at 17. Additionally, the
EPA entered into a consent decree with the Sierra Club and Our Children's Earth Foundation on October 31, 2005, that required EPA to conduct its review of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J and propose revisions by April 30, 2007, and to promulgate a final rule by April 30, 2008. EPA began its review of subpart J and drafted a proposal package. Shortly before EPA sent the proposed rule package to OMB for its review, the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 2, 2007, issued its decision in
We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the final requirements of subpart Ja that change the performance standards for the following: (1) The emission limits for fluid catalytic cracking units, sulfur recovery plants, fluid coking units, fuel gas combustion devices, and process heaters; and (2) the work practice standards for flares and delayed coking units. The final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J are clarifications to the existing rule and they have no emission reduction impacts. The cost, environmental, and economic impacts presented in this section are expressed as incremental differences between the impacts of petroleum refinery process units complying with the final subpart Ja and the current NSPS requirements of subpart J (
In order to determine the incremental costs and emission reductions of this final rule, we first estimated baseline impacts. For new sources, baseline costs and emission reductions were estimated for complying with subpart J; incremental impacts for subpart Ja were estimated as the costs to comply with subpart J subtracted from the costs to comply with final subpart Ja. Sources that are modified or reconstructed over the next 5 years must comply with subpart J in the absence of final subpart Ja. Prior to reconstruction or modification, these sources will either be subject to a consent decree
When considering and selecting emission limits for the final rule, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each option for new sources separately from reconstructed and modified sources. In most cases, our selections for each process unit and pollutant were consistent for modified and reconstructed units and new units. In this section, we are presenting our costs and emission reductions for the overall rule. We estimate that the final amendments will reduce emissions of PM by 1,300 tons/yr, SO
Indirect or secondary air quality impacts of this final rule will result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices. If plants purchase electricity from a power plant, we estimate that the final standards will increase secondary emissions of criteria pollutants, including PM, SO
As explained earlier, we expect that affected facilities will control emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units by installing and operating ESP or wet gas scrubbers. We also expect that the emissions from the affected FCU will be controlled with a wet scrubber. For these process units, we estimated solid waste impacts for both types of control devices and water impacts for wet gas scrubbers. In addition, the controls needed by small sulfur recovery plants will generate condensate. We project that this final rule will generate 1.6 billion gallons of water per year for the 5 years following proposal. We also estimate that this final rule will generate 2,200 Mg/yr (2,400 tons/yr) of solid waste over those 5 years.
Energy impacts as defined in this preamble section consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment that would be required under the final rule. Our estimate of the increased energy demand includes the electricity needed to produce the required amounts of steam as well as direct electricity demand. We project that this final rule will increase overall energy demand by about 410 gigawatt-hours per year (1,400 billion British thermal units per year). An analysis of energy impacts that accounts for reactions in affected markets to the costs of this final rule can be found in the section on Executive Order 13211 found later in this preamble.
Our economic impact analysis estimated the impacts on product price and output that the final NSPS would have on five petroleum products— motor gasoline, jet fuel, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, and liquefied petroleum gases. This analysis estimates in the fifth year after proposal that the price of these petroleum products will increase less than 0.01 percent nationally along with a corresponding reduction in output of less than 0.01 percent. The overall total annual social costs, which reflect changes in consumer and producer behavior in response to the compliance costs, are $27 million ($2006) in the fifth year after proposal or almost identical to the compliance costs incurred by affected producers of these petroleum products.
For more information, please refer to the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that is in the docket for this final rule.
We estimate the monetized benefits of this final rule to be $220 million to $1.9 billion (2006$) in the fifth year after proposal. We base the benefits estimate derived from the PM
The specific estimates of benefits per ton of pollutant reductions included in this analysis are largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality, which is based on the PM Expert Elicitation study (Industrial Economics, Inc., September 2006.
This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM NAAQS RIA because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. However, the 2006 PM NAAQS analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of alternative concentration response functions, including those derived from the PM expert elicitation study.
The annualized costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $31 million (2006 dollars) in the fifth year after proposal, and the benefits are estimated at $220 million to $1.9 billion (2006 dollars) for that same year. Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking are estimated at $190 million to $1.8 billion (2006 dollars). EPA believes that the benefits are likely to exceed the costs by a significant margin even when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and benefit estimates. It should be noted that the range of benefits estimates provided above does not include ozone-related benefits from the reductions in VOC and NO
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the RIA for the Final Petroleum Refinery NSPS. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized here. The monetized benefits of this action are estimated as a range from $220 million to $1.9 billion (2006 dollars), and the annualized costs of this action are $31.1 million (2006 dollars). We also estimated the economic impacts, small business impacts, and energy impacts associated with this action. These analyses are included in the RIA and are summarized elsewhere in this preamble.
The final amendments to the standards of performance for petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) do not impose any new information collection burden. The final amendments add a monitoring exemption for fuel gas streams combusted in a fuel gas combustion device that are inherently low in sulfur content. The exemption applies to fuel gas streams that meet specified criteria or that the owner or operator demonstrates are low sulfur according to the rule requirements. The owner or operator is required to submit a written application for the exemption containing information needed to document the low sulfur content. The application is not a mandatory requirement and the incremental reduction in monitoring burden that
The information collection requirements in the final standards of performance for petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja) have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
The information collection requirements in this final rule are needed by the Agency to determine compliance with the standards. These requirements are based on recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and on specific requirements in subpart J or subpart Ja which are mandatory for all operators subject to new source performance standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The final standards of performance for petroleum refineries include work practice requirements for delayed coking reactor vessel depressuring and written plans to minimize emissions from flares. Plants also are required to analyze the cause of any exceedance that releases more than 500 pounds per day of SO
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 5,340 labor-hours per year at a cost of $481,249 per year. The annualized capital costs are estimated at $2,052,000 per year and operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1,117,440 per year. We note that the capital costs as well as the operation and maintenance costs are for the continuous monitors; these costs are also included in the cost impacts presented in section V.A of this preamble. Therefore, the burden costs associated with the continuous monitors presented in the ICR are not additional costs incurred by affected sources subject to final subpart Ja. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of this final action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has no more than 1,500 employees, depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by the current standards of performance for petroleum refineries are small refineries. After reviewing the small business analysis for the proposed NSPS, we realized that we inadvertently used the capacity limit of 125,000 barrels/day production as part of the small business size standard to evaluate the impacts on small refiners; the definition that should have been used is 1,500 employees for an ultimate parent entity with no capacity limit in the United States. The effect of this change in the small business size standard for this analysis is one additional small refiner. This change in the small business size standard does not lead to any effect on the certification that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities resulting from today's action. We have determined that, of the 58 entities that are in the affected industry, 25 of these (or 43 percent) are classified as small according to the SBA small business size standard listed previously. Of these 25 affected entities, three are expected to be affected by today's action. None of these three small entities is expected to incur an annualized compliance cost of more than 1.0 percent to comply with this final action. For more information, please refer to the economic impact analysis that is in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Although this final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this final action on small entities by incorporating specific standards for small sulfur recovery plants and streamlining procedures for exempting inherently low-sulfur fuel gases from continuous monitoring.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section
EPA has determined that this final action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year after proposal are an annualized cost of $31.1 million (2006 dollars). Thus, this final action is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this final action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, this final action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This final action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final action.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We prepared an analysis of the impacts on energy markets as part of our RIA for this final action. This analysis accounts for the increase in electricity generation occurring due to additional control requirements associated with this final action. Our analysis shows that there is a reduction in gasoline output of less than 0.75 million gallons per year, or less than 50 barrels of gasoline production per day in the fifth year after proposal of this final action. In addition, our analysis shows that there is no increase in gasoline prices in the fifth year after proposal of this final action. With no increase in domestic gasoline prices, no significant increase in our dependence on foreign energy supplies should take place. Finally, this final action will have no adverse effect on crude oil supply, coal production, electricity production, and energy distribution. Further, we conclude that this final action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. For more information on this analysis, please refer to the RIA available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to use the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” for its manual methods of measuring the content of the exhaust gas. These parts of ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, 7C, and 15A. This standard is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
The EPA has also decided to use EPA methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 5B, 5F, 5I, 6, 6A, 6C, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 10, 10A, 10B, 11, 15, 15A, 16, and 17 (40 CFR part 60, Appendices A-1 through A6); Performance Specifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 7, and 11 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix B); quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F; and the Gas Processors Association Standard 2377-86, “Test for Hydrogen
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule and amendments.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that these final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The final amendments are clarifications which do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporations by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for § 60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, §§ 60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), (g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and 60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2) of subpart Ja, Tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, Tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, Table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and §§ 60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
(m) * * * You may inspect a copy at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(1) Gas Processors Association Standard 2377-86, Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes, 1986 Revision, IBR approved for §§ 60.105(b)(1)(iv), 60.107a(b)(1)(iv), 60.334(h)(1), 60.4360, and 60.4415(a)(1)(ii).
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following affected facilities in petroleum refineries: fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and all Claus sulfur recovery plants except Claus plants with a design capacity for sulfur feed of 20 long tons per day (LTD) or less. * * *
(b) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator or fuel gas combustion device under paragraph (a) of this section other than a flare as defined in § 60.101a which commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973, and on or before May 14, 2007, or any fuel gas combustion device under paragraph (a) of this section that meets the definition of a flare as defined in § 60.101a which commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973, and on or before June 24, 2008, or any Claus sulfur recovery plant under paragraph (a) of this section which commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 4, 1976, and on or before May 14, 2007, is subject to the requirements of this subpart except as provided under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(c) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator under paragraph (b) of this section which commences construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before January 17, 1984, is exempted from § 60.104(b).
(d) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit in which a contact material reacts with petroleum derivatives to improve feedstock quality and in which the contact material is regenerated by burning off coke and/or other deposits and that commences construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before January 17, 1984, is exempt from this subpart.
(d)
(b) Where the gases discharged by the fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler in which auxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel is burned, particulate matter in excess of that permitted by paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be emitted to the atmosphere, except that the incremental rate of particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 43 grams per Gigajoule (g/GJ) (0.10 lb/million British thermal units (Btu)) of heat input attributable to such liquid or solid fossil fuel.
(b) * * *
(1) With an add-on control device, reduce SO
(2) Without the use of an add-on control device to reduce SO
(a) * * *
(3) For fuel gas combustion devices subject to § 60.104(a)(1), either an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume (dry basis, zero percent excess air) of SO
(iv) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored at only one location (i.e., after one of the combustion devices), if monitoring at this location accurately represents the SO
(4) Instead of the SO
(iv) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device is not required to comply with paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section for fuel gas streams that are exempt under § 60.104(a)(1) and fuel gas streams combusted in a fuel gas combustion device that are inherently low in sulfur content. Fuel gas streams meeting one of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section will be considered inherently low in sulfur content. If the composition of a fuel gas stream changes such that it is no longer exempt under § 60.104(a)(1) or it no longer meets one of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section, the owner or operator must begin continuous monitoring under paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section within 15 days of the change.
(A) Pilot gas for heaters and flares.
(B) Fuel gas streams that meet a commercial-grade product specification for sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less. In the case of a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) product specification in the pressurized liquid state, the gas phase sulfur content should be evaluated assuming complete vaporization of the LPG and sulfur containing-compounds at the product specification concentration.
(C) Fuel gas streams produced in process units that are intolerant to sulfur contamination, such as fuel gas streams produced in the hydrogen plant, the catalytic reforming unit, the isomerization unit, and HF alkylation process units.
(D) Other fuel gas streams that an owner or operator demonstrates are low-sulfur according to the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.
(8) An instrument for continuously monitoring and recording concentrations of SO
(i) The span value of the inlet monitor shall be set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO
(b) An owner or operator may demonstrate that a fuel gas stream combusted in a fuel gas combustion device subject to § 60.104(a)(1) that is not specifically exempted in § 60.105(a)(4)(iv) is inherently low in sulfur. A fuel gas stream that is determined to be low-sulfur is exempt from the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section until there are changes in operating conditions or stream composition.
(1) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a written application for an exemption from monitoring. The application must contain the following information:
(i) A description of the fuel gas stream/system to be considered, including submission of a portion of the appropriate piping diagrams indicating the boundaries of the fuel gas stream/system, and the affected fuel gas combustion device(s) to be considered;
(ii) A statement that there are no crossover or entry points for sour gas (high H
(iii) An explanation of the conditions that ensure low amounts of sulfur in the fuel gas stream (i.e., control equipment or product specifications) at all times;
(iv) The supporting test results from sampling the requested fuel gas stream/system demonstrating that the sulfur content is less than 5 ppmv. Sampling data must include, at minimum, 2 weeks of daily monitoring (14 grab samples) for frequently operated fuel gas streams/systems; for infrequently operated fuel gas streams/systems,
(v) A description of how the 2 weeks (or seven samples for infrequently operated fuel gas streams/systems) of monitoring results compares to the typical range of H
(2) The effective date of the exemption is the date of submission of the information required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section).
(3) No further action is required unless refinery operating conditions change in such a way that affects the exempt fuel gas stream/system (e.g., the stream composition changes). If such a change occurs, the owner or operator will follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), or (b)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is still within the range of concentrations included in the original application, the owner or operator shall conduct an H
(ii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is outside the range of concentrations included in the original application, the owner or operator may submit new information following the procedures of paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60 days (or within 30 days after the seventh grab sample is tested for infrequently operated process units).
(iii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is outside the range of concentrations included in the original application and the owner or operator chooses not to submit new information to support an exemption, the owner or operator must begin H
(b) * * *
(3) The coke burn-off rate (R
(e) * * *
(2) Where emissions are monitored by § 60.105(a)(3), compliance with § 60.104(a)(1) shall be determined using Method 6 or 6C and Method 3 or 3A. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6. * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The average percent reduction and average concentration of sulfur dioxide on a dry, O
(e) For each fuel gas stream combusted in a fuel gas combustion device subject to § 60.104(a)(1), if an owner or operator determines that one of the exemptions listed in § 60.105(a)(4)(iv) applies to that fuel gas stream, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the specific exemption chosen for each fuel gas stream. If the owner or operator applies for the exemption described in § 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the owner or operator must keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from the Administrator granting approval of the application.
(e) * * * The owner or operator shall furnish the Administrator with a written notification of the change in the semiannual report required by § 60.107(f).
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected facilities in petroleum refineries: fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU), fluid coking units (FCU), delayed coking units, fuel gas combustion devices, including flares and process heaters, and sulfur recovery plants. The sulfur recovery plant need not be physically located within the boundaries of a petroleum refinery to be an affected facility, provided it processes gases produced within a petroleum refinery.
(b) Except for flares, the provisions of this subpart apply only to affected facilities under paragraph (a) of this section which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after May 14, 2007. For flares, the provisions of this subpart apply only to flares which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction, after June 24, 2008.
(c) For the purposes of this subpart, under § 60.14, a modification to a flare occurs if:
(1) Any new piping from a refinery process unit or fuel gas system is physically connected to the flare (e.g., for direct emergency relief or some form of continuous or intermittent venting); or
(2) A flare is physically altered to increase the flow capacity of the flare.
(d) For purposes of this subpart, under § 60.15, the “fixed capital cost of the new components” includes the fixed capital cost of all depreciable components which are or will be replaced pursuant to all continuous programs of component replacement which are commenced within any 2-year period following May 14, 2007. For purposes of this paragraph, “commenced” means that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of component replacement or that an owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of component replacement.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 60.2, and in this section.
(a) Each owner or operator that is subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the emissions limitations in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section on and after the date on which the initial performance test, required by § 60.8, is completed, but not later than 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, or 180 days after initial startup, whichever comes first.
(b) An owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any FCCU or FCU:
(1) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of the limits in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(i) 1.0 kilogram per Megagram (kg/Mg)(1 pound (lb) per 1,000 lb) coke burn-off or, if a PM continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is used, 0.040 grain per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) corrected to 0 percent excess air for each modified or reconstructed FCCU.
(ii) 0.5 gram per kilogram (g/kg) coke burn-off (0.5 lb PM/1,000 lb coke burn-off) or, if a PM CEMS is used, 0.020 gr/dscf corrected to 0 percent excess air for each newly constructed FCCU.
(iii) 1.0 kg/Mg (1 lb/1,000 lb) coke burn-off; or if a PM CEMS is used, 0.040 grain per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) corrected to 0 percent excess air for each affected FCU.
(2) Nitrogen oxides (NO
(3) Sulfur dioxide (SO
(4) Carbon monoxide (CO) in excess of 500 ppmv, dry basis corrected to 0 percent excess air, on an hourly average basis.
(c) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that uses a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to § 60.105a(b)(1) shall comply with the applicable control device parameter operating limit in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the FCCU or FCU is controlled using an electrostatic precipitator:
(i) The 3-hour rolling average total power and secondary current to the entire system must not fall below the level established during the most recent performance test; and
(ii) The daily average exhaust coke burn-off rate must not exceed the level established during the most recent performance test.
(2) If the FCCU or FCU is controlled using a wet scrubber:
(i) The 3-hour rolling average pressure drop must not fall below the level established during the most recent performance test; and
(ii) The 3-hour rolling average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall below the level established during the most recent performance test.
(d) If an FCCU or FCU uses a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) according to the alternative monitoring option in § 60.105a(e), the 3-hour rolling average opacity of emissions from the FCCU or FCU as measured by the COMS must not exceed the site-specific opacity limit established during the most recent performance test.
(e) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that is exempted from the requirement for a CO continuous emissions monitoring system under § 60.105a(h)(3) shall comply with the parameter operating limits in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For a FCCU or FCU with no post-combustion control device:
(i) The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gases exiting the FCCU or FCU must not fall below the level established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) The hourly average oxygen (O
(2) For a FCCU or FCU with a post-combustion control device:
(i) The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gas vent stream exiting the control device must not fall below the level established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) The hourly average O
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3), each owner or operator of an affected sulfur recovery plant shall comply with the applicable emission limits in paragraphs (f)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity greater than 20 long tons per day (LTD):
(i) For a sulfur recovery plant with an oxidation control system or a reduction control system followed by incineration, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere in excess of 250 ppm by volume (dry basis) of sulfur dioxide (SO
(ii) For sulfur recovery plant with a reduction control system not followed by incineration, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere in excess of 300 ppm by volume of reduced sulfur compounds and 10 ppm by volume of hydrogen sulfide (HS
(iii) For systems using oxygen enrichment, the owner or operator shall calculate the applicable emission limit using Equation 1 of this section:
(2) For a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity of 20 LTD or less:
(i) For a sulfur recovery plant with an oxidation control system or a reduction control system followed by incineration, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere in excess of 2,500 ppm by volume (dry basis) of SO
(ii) For sulfur recovery plant with a reduction control system not followed by incineration, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere in excess of 3,000 ppm by volume of reduced sulfur compounds and 100 ppm by volume of hydrogen sulfide (H
(iii) For systems using oxygen enrichment, the owner or operator shall calculate the applicable emission limit using Equation 2 of this section:
(3) Periods of maintenance of the sulfur pit, during which the emission limits in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) shall not apply, shall not exceed 240 hours per year. The owner or operator must document the time periods during which the sulfur pit vents were not controlled and measures taken to minimize emissions during these periods. Examples of these measures include not adding fresh sulfur or shutting off vent fans.
(g) Each owner or operator of an affected fuel gas combustion device shall comply with the emission limits in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For each fuel gas combustion device, the owner or operator shall comply with either the emission limit in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section or the fuel gas concentration limit in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere that contain SO
(ii) The owner or operator shall not burn in any fuel gas combustion device any fuel gas that contains H
(2) For each process heater with a rated capacity of greater than 40 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), the owner or operator shall not discharge to the atmosphere any emissions of NO
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section, the owner or operator of an affected flare shall not allow flow to each affected flare during normal operations of more than 7,080 standard cubic meters per day (m
(h) The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from paragraph (g) of this section.
(i) In periods of fuel gas imbalance that are described in the flare management plan required in section 60.103a(a), compliance with the emission limit in paragraph (g)(3) of this section is demonstrated by following the procedures and maintaining records described in the flare management plan to document the periods of excess fuel gas.
(a) Each owner or operator that operates a flare that is subject to this subpart shall develop and implement a written flare management plan. The owner or operator of a newly constructed or reconstructed flare must develop and implement the flare management plan by no later than the date that flare becomes an affected flare subject to this subpart. The owner or operator of a modified flare must develop and implement the flare management plan by no later than 1 year after the flare becomes an affected flare subject to this subpart. The plan must include:
(1) A diagram illustrating all connections to the flare;
(2) Methods for monitoring flow rate to the flare, including a detailed
(3) Procedures to minimize discharges to the flare gas system during the planned start-up and shutdown of the refinery process units that are connected to the affected flare;
(4) Procedures to conduct a root cause analysis of any process upset or malfunction that causes a discharge to the flare in excess of 14,160 m
(5) Procedures to reduce flaring in cases of fuel gas imbalance (i.e., excess fuel gas for the refinery's energy needs); and
(6) Explanation of procedures to follow during times that the flare must exceed the limit in § 60.102a(g)(3) (e.g., keep records of natural gas purchases to support assertion that the refinery is producing more fuel gas than needed to operate the processes).
(b) Each owner or operator that operates a fuel gas combustion device or sulfur recovery plant subject to this subpart shall conduct a root cause analysis of any emission limit exceedance or process start-up, shutdown, upset, or malfunction that causes a discharge to the atmosphere in excess of 227 kilograms per day (kg/day) (500 lb per day (lb/day)) of SO
(c) Each owner or operator of a delayed coking unit shall depressure to 5 lb per square inch gauge (psig) during reactor vessel depressuring and vent the exhaust gases to the fuel gas system for combustion in a fuel gas combustion device.
(a) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each FCCU, FCU, sulfur recovery plant, and fuel gas combustion device to demonstrate initial compliance with each applicable emissions limit in § 60.102a according to the requirements of § 60.8. The notification requirements of § 60.8(d) apply to the initial performance test and to subsequent performance tests required by paragraph (b) of this section (or as required by the Administrator), but does not apply to performance tests conducted for the purpose of obtaining supplemental data because of continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments.
(b) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that elects to monitor control device operating parameters according to the requirements in § 60.105a(b), to use bag leak detectors according to the requirements in § 60.105a(c), or to use COMS according to the requirements in § 60.105a(e) shall conduct a PM performance test at least once every 12 months and furnish the Administrator a written report of the results of each test.
(c) In conducting the performance tests required by this subpart (or as requested by the Administrator), the owner or operator shall use the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, Appendices A-1 through A-8 or other methods as specified in this section, except as provided in § 60.8(b).
(d) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the PM, NO
(1) Method 1 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for sample and velocity traverses.
(2) Method 2 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.
(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60 for gas analysis. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60.
(4) Method 5, 5B, or 5F of Appendix A-3 to part 60 for determining PM emissions and associated moisture content from a FCCU or FCU without a wet scrubber subject to the emissions limit in § 63.102a(b)(1). Use Method 5 or 5B of Appendix A-3 to part 60 for determining PM emissions and associated moisture content from a FCCU or FCU with a wet scrubber subject to the emissions limit in § 63.102a(b)(1).
(i) The PM performance test consists of 3 valid test runs; the duration of each test run must be no less than 60 minutes.
(ii) The emissions rate of PM (E
(iii) The coke burn-off rate (R
(iv) During the performance test, the volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from catalyst regenerator (Q
(v) For subsequent calculations of coke burn-off rates or exhaust gas flow rates, the volumetric flow rate of Q
(5) Method 6, 6A, or 6C of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for moisture content and for the concentration of SO
(6) Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for moisture content and for the concentration of NO
(7) Method 10, 10A, or 10B of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for moisture content and for the concentration of CO. The sampling time for each run must be 60 minutes.
(8) The owner or operator shall adjust PM, NO
(e) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that is controlled by an electrostatic precipitator or wet scrubber and that is subject to control device operating parameter limits in § 60.102a(c) shall establish the limits based on the performance test results according to the following procedures:
(1) Reduce the parameter monitoring data to hourly averages for each test run;
(2) Determine the hourly average operating limit for each required parameter as the average of the three test runs.
(f) The owner or operator of an FCCU or FCU that uses cyclones to comply with the PM limit in § 60.102a(b)(1) and elects to comply with the COMS alternative monitoring option in § 60.105a(d) shall establish a site-specific opacity operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Collect COMS data every 10 seconds during the entire period of the PM performance test and reduce the data to 6-minute averages.
(2) Determine and record the hourly average opacity from all the 6-minute averages.
(3) Compute the site-specific limit using Equation 7 of this section:
(g) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that is exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CO CEMS pursuant to § 60.105a(h)(3) and that is subject to control device operating parameter limits in § 60.102a(c) shall establish the limits based on the performance test results
(1) Reduce the temperature and O
(2) Determine the operating limit for temperature and O
(h) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the SO
(1) Method 1 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for sample and velocity traverses.
(2) Method 2 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.
(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60 for gas analysis. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60.
(4) Method 6, 6A, or 6C of Appendix A-4 to part 60 to determine the SO
(5) Method 15 or 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 16 of Appendix A-6 to part 60 to determine the reduced sulfur compounds and H
(i) Each run consists of 16 samples taken over a minimum of 3 hours.
(ii) The owner or operator shall calculate the average H
(iii) The owner or operator shall calculate the SO
(iv) The owner or operator shall use Equation 6 of this section to adjust pollutant concentrations to 0 percent O
(i) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the SO
(1) Method 1 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for sample and velocity traverses;
(2) Method 2 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for velocity and volumetric flow rate;
(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60 for gas analysis. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60;
(4) Method 6, 6A, or 6C of Appendix A-4 to part 60 to determine the SO
(i) The performance test consists of 3 valid test runs; the duration of each test run must be no less than 1 hour.
(ii) If a single fuel gas combustion device having a common source of fuel gas is monitored as allowed under § 60.107a(a)(1)(v), only one performance test is required. That is, performance tests are not required when a new affected fuel gas combustion device is added to a common source of fuel gas that previously demonstrated compliance.
(5) Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for moisture content and for the concentration of NO
(j) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the H
(1) Method 1 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for sample and velocity traverses;
(2) Method 2 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 for velocity and volumetric flow rate;
(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60 for gas analysis. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of Appendix A-2 to part 60;
(4) Method 11, 15, or 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 16 of Appendix A-6 to part 60 for determining the H
(i) For Method 11 of Appendix A-5 to part 60, the sampling time and sample volume must be at least 10 minutes and 0.010 dscm (0.35 dscf). Two samples of equal sampling times must be taken at about 1-hour intervals. The arithmetic average of these two samples constitutes a run. For most fuel gases, sampling times exceeding 20 minutes may result in depletion of the collection solution, although fuel gases containing low concentrations of H
(ii) For Method 15 of Appendix A-5 to part 60, at least three injects over a 1-hour period constitutes a run.
(iii) For Method 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60, a 1-hour sample constitutes a run. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60.
(iv) If monitoring is conducted at a single point in a common source of fuel gas as allowed under § 60.107a(a)(2)(iv), only one performance test is required. That is, performance tests are not required when a new affected fuel gas combustion device is added to a common source of fuel gas that previously demonstrated compliance.
(a)
(b)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain continuous parameter monitor systems (CPMS) to measure and record operating parameters for each control device according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For units controlled using an electrostatic precipitator, the owner or operator shall use CPMS to measure and record the hourly average total power input and secondary voltage to the entire system.
(ii) For units controlled using a wet scrubber, the owner or operator shall use CPMS to measure and record the hourly average pressure drop, liquid feed rate, and exhaust gas flow rate. As an alternative to a CPMS, the owner or operator must comply with the requirements in either paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) As an alterative to pressure drop, the owner or operator of a jet ejector type wet scrubber or other type of wet scrubber equipped with atomizing spray nozzles must conduct a daily check of the air or water pressure to the spray nozzles and record the results of each check.
(B) As an alternative to exhaust gas flow rate, the owner or operator shall comply with the approved alternative for monitoring exhaust gas flow rate in 40 CFR 63.1573(a) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units.
(iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the manufacturer's specifications and requirements.
(iv) The owner or operator shall determine and record the average coke burn-off rate and hours of operation for each FCCU or FCU using the procedures in § 60.104a(d)(4)(iii).
(v) If you use a control device other than an electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, fabric filter, or cyclone, you may request approval to monitor parameters other than those required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section by submitting an alternative monitoring plan to the Administrator. The request must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) A description of each affected facility and the parameter(s) to be monitored to determine whether the affected facility will continuously comply with the emission limitations and an explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s).
(B) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used to demonstrate that the parameter(s) can be used to determine whether the affected facility will continuously comply with the emission limitations and the schedule for this demonstration. The owner or operator must certify that an operating limit will be established for the monitored parameter(s) that represents the conditions in existence when the control device is being properly operated and maintained to meet the emission limitation.
(C) The frequency and content of the recordkeeping, recording, and reporting, if monitoring and recording are not continuous. The owner or operator also must include the rationale for the proposed monitoring, recording, and reporting requirements.
(D) Supporting calculations.
(E) Averaging time for the alternative operating parameter.
(2) For use in determining the coke burn-off rate for an FCCU or FCU, the owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring the concentrations of CO
(i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of Appendix B to part 60.
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each CO
(iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance requirements of procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60, including quarterly accuracy determinations for CO
(c)
(1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, the owner or operator must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.
(v) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section.
(vi) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(vii) The owner or operator shall install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(2) The owner or operator shall develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each baghouse and bag leak detection system. The owner or operator shall operate and maintain each baghouse and bag leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures;
(iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and stored;
(vi) Procedures as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as practicable; and
(vii) How the baghouse system will be operated and maintained, including monitoring of pressure drop across baghouse cells and frequency of visual inspections of the baghouse interior and baghouse components such as fans and dust removal and bag cleaning mechanisms.
(3) For each bag leak detection system, the owner or operator shall initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section, the owner or operator shall alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever action(s) are necessary. Actions may include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in particulate emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing the control device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system; or
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(4) The owner or operator shall maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section for each bag leak detection system.
(i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
(ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
(iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
(d)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each PM monitor according to Performance Specification 11 of appendix B to part 60. The span value of this PM monitor is 0.08 gr/dscf PM.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each PM monitor according to the requirements in § 60.13(c) and Performance Specification 11 of appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator shall use EPA Methods 5 or 5I of Appendix A-3 to part 60 or Method 17 of Appendix A-6 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.
(3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each O
(5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance requirements of Procedure 2 of Appendix B to part 60 for each PM CEMS and Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each O
(e)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the opacity of emissions from the FCCU or the FCU exhaust vent.
(2) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each COMS according to Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B to part 60. The instrument shall be spanned at 20 to 60 percent opacity.
(3) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each COMS according to § 60.13(c) and Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B to part 60.
(f)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each NO
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each NO
(3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each O
(5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance requirements of Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each NO
(g)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each SO
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each SO
(3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each O
(5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each SO
(h)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each CO monitor according to Performance Specification 4 or 4A of Appendix B to part 60. The span value for this instrument is 1,000 ppm CO.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each CO monitor according to the requirements in § 60.13(c) and Performance Specification 4 or 4A of Appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator shall use Methods 10, 10A, or 10B of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.
(3) A CO CEMS need not be installed if the owner or operator demonstrates that all hourly average CO emissions are and will remain less than 50 ppmv (dry basis) corrected to 0 percent excess air. The Administrator may revoke this exemption from monitoring upon a determination that CO emissions on an hourly average basis have exceeded 50 ppmv (dry basis) corrected to 0 percent excess air, in which case a CO CEMS shall be installed within 180 days.
(i) The demonstration shall consist of continuously monitoring CO emissions for 30 days using an instrument that meets the requirements of Performance Specification 4 or 4A of Appendix B to part 60. The span value shall be 100 ppm CO instead of 1,000 ppm, and the relative accuracy limit shall be 10 percent of the average CO emissions or 5 ppm CO, whichever is greater. For instruments that are identical to Method 10 of Appendix A-4 to part 60 and employ the sample conditioning system of Method 10A of Appendix A-4 to part 60, the alternative relative accuracy test procedure in section 10.1 of Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60 may be used in place of the relative accuracy test.
(ii) The owner or operator must submit the following information to the Administrator:
(A) The measurement data specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section along with all other operating data known to affect CO emissions; and
(B) Descriptions of the CPMS for exhaust gas temperature and O
(iii) The effective date of the exemption from installation and operation of a CO CEMS is the date of submission of the information and data required in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that is exempted from the requirement to install and operate a CO CEMS in paragraph (h)(3) of this section shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain CPMS to measure and record the operating parameters in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the manufacturer's specifications.
(i) For a FCCU or FCU with no post-combustion control device, the temperature and O
(ii) For a FCCU or FCU with a post-combustion control device, the temperature and O
(i)
(1) If a CPMS is used according to § 60.105a(b)(1), all 3-hour periods during which the average PM control device operating characteristics, as measured by the continuous monitoring systems under § 60.105a(b)(1), fall below the levels established during the performance test.
(2) If a PM CEMS is used according to § 60.105a(d), all 7-day periods during which the average PM emission rate, as measured by the continuous PM monitoring system under § 60.105a(d) exceeds 0.040 gr/dscf corrected to 0 percent excess air for a modified or reconstructed FCCU, 0.020 gr/dscf corrected to 0 percent excess air for a newly constructed FCCU, or 0.040 gr/dscf for an affected fluid coking unit.
(3) If a COMS is used according to § 60.105a(e), all 3-hour periods during which the average opacity, as measured by the COMS under § 60.105a(e), exceeds the site-specific limit established during the most recent performance test.
(4) All rolling 7-day periods during which the average concentration of NO
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(7) of this section, all rolling 7-day periods during which the average concentration of SO
(6) All 1-hour periods during which the average CO concentration as measured by the CO continuous monitoring system under §1A60.105a(h) exceeds 500 ppmv or, if applicable, all 1-hour periods during which the average temperature and O
(a) The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant that is subject to the emissions limits in § 60.102a(f)(1) or § 60.102a(f)(2) shall:
(1) For sulfur recovery plants subject to the SO
(i) The span values for this monitor are two times the applicable SO
(ii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each SO
(iii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each SO
(2) For sulfur recovery plants that are subject to the reduced sulfur compound and H
(i) The span values for this monitor are two times the applicable reduced sulfur emission limit, two times the H
(ii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each reduced sulfur CEMS according to Performance Specification 5 of Appendix B to part 60.
(iii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each reduced sulfur monitor according to the requirements in § 60.13(c) and Performance Specification 5 of Appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator shall use Methods 15 or 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60.
(iv) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each H
(v) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each reduced sulfur monitor according to the requirements in § 60.13(c) and Performance Specification 5 of Appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator shall use Methods 11, 15, or 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 16 of Appendix A-6 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60.
(vi) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(vii) The span value for the O
(viii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for the O
(ix) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality assurance procedures of Appendix F to part 60 for each monitor, including annual accuracy determinations for each O
(3) In place of the reduced sulfur monitor required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain an instrument using an air or O
(i) The span value for this monitor is two times the applicable SO
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each SO
(iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(iv) The span value for the O
(v) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for the O
(vi) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality assurance procedures of Appendix F to part 60 for each monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations for each SO
(b)
(1) All 12-hour periods during which the average concentration of SO
(2) All 12-hour periods during which the average concentration of reduced sulfur (as SO
(3) All 12-hour periods during which the average concentration of H
(a)
(1) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device subject to the SO
(i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each SO
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for the SO
(iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(iv) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for the O
(v) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality assurance procedures in Appendix F to part 60, including quarterly accuracy determinations for SO
(vi) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored at only one location (i.e., after one of the combustion devices), if monitoring at this location accurately represents the SO
(2) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device subject to the H
(i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each H
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for each H
(iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality assurance procedures in Appendix F to part 60 for each H
(iv) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored at only one location, if monitoring at this location accurately represents the concentration of H
(3) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device is not required to comply with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section for fuel gas streams that are
(i) Pilot gas for heaters and flares.
(ii) Fuel gas streams that meet a commercial-grade product specification for sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less. In the case of a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) product specification in the pressurized liquid state, the gas phase sulfur content should be evaluated assuming complete vaporization of the LPG and sulfur containing-compounds at the product specification concentration.
(iii) Fuel gas streams produced in process units that are intolerant to sulfur contamination, such as fuel gas streams produced in the hydrogen plant, catalytic reforming unit, isomerization unit, and HF alkylation process units.
(iv) Other fuel gas streams that an owner or operator demonstrates are low-sulfur according to the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.
(4) If the composition of an exempt fuel gas stream changes, the owner or operator must follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(b)
(1) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a written application for an exemption from monitoring. The application must contain the following information:
(i) A description of the fuel gas stream/system to be considered, including submission of a portion of the appropriate piping diagrams indicating the boundaries of the fuel gas stream/system, and the affected fuel gas combustion device(s) to be considered;
(ii) A statement that there are no crossover or entry points for sour gas (high H
(iii) An explanation of the conditions that ensure low amounts of sulfur in the fuel gas stream (i.e., control equipment or product specifications) at all times;
(iv) The supporting test results from sampling the requested fuel gas stream/system demonstrating that the sulfur content is less than 5 ppm H
(v) A description of how the 2 weeks (or seven samples for infrequently operated fuel gas streams/systems) of monitoring results compares to the typical range of H
(2) The effective date of the exemption is the date of submission of the information required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) No further action is required unless refinery operating conditions change in such a way that affects the exempt fuel gas stream/system (e.g., the stream composition changes). If such a change occurs, the owner or operator shall follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), or (b)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is still within the range of concentrations included in the original application, the owner or operator shall conduct an H
(ii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is outside the range of concentrations included in the original application, the owner or operator may submit new information following the procedures of paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60 days (or within 30 days after the seventh grab sample is tested for infrequently operated process units).
(iii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is outside the range of concentrations included in the original application, and the owner or operator chooses not to submit new information to support an exemption, the owner or operator must begin H
(c)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each NO
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each NO
(3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each O
(5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each NO
(6) The owner or operator of a process heater that has a rated heating capacity of less than 100 MMBtu and is equipped with low-NO
(d)
(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each reduced sulfur CEMS according to Performance Specification 5 of Appendix B to part 60.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each reduced sulfur monitor according to the requirements in § 60.13(c) and Performance Specification 5 of Appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator shall use Methods 15 or 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A of Appendix A-5 to part 60.
(3) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality assurance procedures in Appendix F to part 60 for each reduced sulfur monitor.
(e)
(1) The CPMS must be able to correct for the temperature and pressure of the system and output flow in standard conditions as defined in § 60.2.
(2) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the manufacturer's specifications and requirements.
(f)
(1) All rolling 3-hour periods during which the average concentration of SO
(2) All rolling 3-hour periods during which the average concentration of H
(3) All rolling 24-hour periods during which the average concentration of NO
(4) All rolling 30-day periods during which the average flow rate to an affected flare as measured by the monitoring system required under paragraph (e) of this section exceeds 250,000 scfd.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the emissions limitations in § 60.102a shall comply with the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in § 60.7 and other requirements as specified in this section.
(b) Each owner or operator subject to an emissions limitation in § 60.102a shall notify the Administrator of the specific monitoring provisions of §§ 60.105a, 60.106a, and 60.107a with which the owner or operator seeks to comply. Notification shall be submitted with the notification of initial startup required by § 60.7(a)(3).
(c) The owner or operator shall maintain the following records:
(1) A copy of the flare management plan and each root cause analysis of a discharge;
(2) Records of information to document conformance with bag leak detection system operation and maintenance requirements in § 60.105a(c).
(3) Records of bag leak detection system alarms and actions according to § 60.105a(c).
(4) For each FCCU and fluid coking unit subject to the monitoring requirements in § 60.105a(b)(1), records of the average coke burn-off rate and hours of operation.
(5) For each fuel gas stream to which one of the exemptions listed in § 60.107a(a)(3) applies, records of the specific exemption determined to apply for each fuel stream. If the owner or operator applies for the exemption described in § 60.107a(a)(3)(iv), the owner or operator must keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from the Administrator granting approval of the application.
(6) The owner or operator shall record and maintain records of discharges greater than 500 lb/day SO
(i) A description of the discharge.
(ii) For discharges greater than 500 lb/day SO
(iii) The measured or calculated cumulative quantity of gas discharged over the discharge duration. If the discharge duration exceeds 24 hours, record the discharge quantity for each 24-hour period. Engineering calculations are allowed for fuel gas combustion devices other than flares.
(iv) For discharges greater than 500 lb/day SO
(v) For discharges greater than 500 lb/day SO
(vi) Results of any root-cause analysis conducted as required in § 60.103a(a)(4) and § 60.103a(b).
(d) Each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall submit an excess emissions report for all periods of excess emissions according to the requirements of § 60.7(c) except that the report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The date that the exceedance occurred;
(2) An explanation of the exceedance;
(3) Whether the exceedance was concurrent with a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected facility or control system; and
(4) A description of the action taken, if any.
(5) A root-cause summary report that provides the information described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section for all discharges for which a root-cause analysis was required by § 60.103a(a)(4) and § 60.103a(b).
(6) For any periods for which monitoring data are not available, any changes made in operation of the emission control system during the period of data unavailability which could affect the ability of the system to meet the applicable emission limit. Operations of the control system and affected facility during periods of data unavailability are to be compared with operation of the control system and affected facility before and following the period of data unavailability.
(7) A written statement, signed by a responsible official, certifying the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the report.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of a major change to test methods under § 60.8(b). A “major change to test method” is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
(2) Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 60.13(i). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
(3) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 60.7(b) through (f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.