Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Forest Service
Risk Management Agency
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Management and Budget Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes amendments to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions, and removes the Plum Crop Insurance Provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations. The intended effect of this action is to allow coverage for plums under the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions; provide policy changes and clarify existing policy provisions to better meet the needs of the producers; and to reduce vulnerability to program fraud, waste, and abuse to the Federal crop Insurance Program. The changes will be effective for the 2011 and succeeding crop years.
Claire White, Economist, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205 at the Kansas City, MO, telephone (816) 926-7730.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is non-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through March 31, 2012.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
On November 24, 2009, FCIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
A total of 50 comments were received from three commenters. The commenters were two reinsured companies and one insurance services organization. The comments received and FCIC's responses are as follows:
A commenter states if the definition of “marketable” remains as is, then a comma should be added after “Special Provisions * * *”
A commenter states the definition could be revised to remove the words “or other standards specified in the Special Provisions” since this is already covered in the revised definition of “Grade Standards.”
More specifically, the commenter states producers may have significant differences in age of trees within a block, even the same row. Many trees are already several years old but if damage results to a specific tree or group of trees, or if the tree is just not producing well, a producer may remove the tree and replace it with a new planting. This could be one or two trees within a row or one row within a block. Additionally, the planting pattern may start out the same but become closer or more spread out as it nears the end of the row or starts to go up a hill. FCIC must recognize that spacing requirements and planting patterns are not constant. This common practice results in inaccurate reporting because a procedure does not exist for this type of tracking. The policy language requires the producer to report the age of the trees and the planting pattern. Language needs to be added to address policies covering trees that vary in age and planting patterns.
In addition, FCIC has removed the phrase “of any of the items” in section 3(c) because it is not needed.
• The first sentence states “[If the event or action occurred:] (1) Before the beginning of the insurance period, we will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the current crop year as necessary.” The phrases “we will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee” and “as necessary” are already stated in the preceding section 3(c). Perhaps this could be rewritten or rearranged to reduce the repetition.
• The second sentence states “If you fail to notify us of any circumstance that may reduce your yields from previous levels, we will reduce your production guarantee at any time we become aware of the circumstance.” Is it intended that the production guarantee will be reduced in this case, instead of the yield used to establish your production guarantee as is stated in the rest of sections 3(c) and 3(c)(1) through 3(c)(3), or should this also say “yield used to establish your production guarantee?” If the latter, then what is the difference in the penalty applied whether or not the producer notifies the reinsured company of the circumstance?
• The second sentence also states yield used to establish the production
• The second sentence should also be reworded to state “If you fail to notify us of any reduction in your yields from previous levels due to any circumstance that reduces the crop's expected yield [or perhaps “yield potential” would be better] for the current crop year, we will reduce * * *”, rather than “If you fail to notify us of any circumstance that may reduce your yields from previous levels, we will reduce * * *”
FCIC agrees the language in the second sentence of section 3(c)(1) needs to be revised. The phrase “we will reduce your production guarantee” is replaced with the phrase “we will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee.” There is no difference in the penalty applied whether or not the producer notified the reinsured company of the circumstance prior to the beginning of the insurance period.
If the producer fails to notify the reinsured company before the beginning of the insurance period and the circumstance does not reduce the yield used to establish the production guarantee, the producer's yield used to establish the production guarantee will not be reduced. FCIC does not agree the phrase “as necessary” needs to be added after the phrase “we will reduce” because it is clear in section 3(c) that the yield will only be reduced as necessary. The phrase has been removed in paragraphs (1) and (2),
FCIC does not agree with the recommended rewording of the second sentence. The suggestion does not significantly change or clarify the provisions. No change has been made.
The commenter also states this proposed rule, as well as other perennial Crop Provisions, contain the following language in the: “[h]owever, we may agree in writing * * *” or “unless we inspect such acreage and give our approval in writing.” However, the policy does not state the yield that will be applied if approval is granted. FCIC must add language to specify how the yield is set if crops have not met the minimum age or production requirement.
FCIC does not agree language needs to be added to the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions to specify how the yield is set if crops have not met the minimum age or production requirement. It would be difficult to address in the Crop Provisions all scenarios when minimum age or production requirements are not met. Therefore, instructions for handling situations for which minimum age or production requirements are not met are contained in section 7F(2)(f) of the Crop Insurance Handbook.
The commenters also recommend language be added to section 8(b)(1) to allow reinsured companies the opportunity to inspect and insure any additional acreage that is acquired after the acreage reporting date if they wish to do so. Reinsured companies should have the opportunity to accept or deny coverage in these types of situations. This would be similar to what is currently allowed for acreage that is not reported per section 6(f) of the Basic Provisions.
FCIC also agrees the settlement of claim example is simplified. As with other Crop Provisions, the settlement of claim example provided in the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions is intended to be a simple step-by-step example. FCIC will revise the Stonefruit LASH to include examples of more complex situations and information suggested by the commenters.
In addition to the changes described above, FCIC has made the following changes:
1. Added a definition of “graft” due to added provisions in section 6(b)(6);
2. Revised section 3(c)(2) to clarify the yield used to establish the production
3. Removed the introductory phrase, “Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for” and replaced it with the word “For” in section 8(c) to be consistent with other Crop Provisions, such as apples and grapes; and
4. Revised section 11(b)(2), section 11(b)(4), and the settlement of claim examples to address the applicability of the percent of the price election.
Crop Insurance, Stonefruit, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(o).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
1. Definitions.
Weight for Processing Apricots, Processing Cling Peaches, and Processing Freestone Peaches is specified in tons.
(a) Fresh Apricots;
(b) Fresh Freestone Peaches;
(c) Fresh Nectarines;
(d) Fresh Plums;
(e) Processing Apricots;
(f) Processing Cling Peaches;
(g) Processing Freestone Peaches; and
(h) Other crops listed in the Special Provisions.
2. Unit Division.
(b) Optional Units by Type: Optional units may be established by type if allowed by the Special Provisions.
3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities.
(a) You may select only one price election and coverage level for each crop grown in the county and listed in the Special Provisions that is insured under this policy. If separate price elections are available by type of a crop, the price elections you choose for each type must have the same percentage relationship to the maximum price offered by us for each type. For example, if you choose 100 percent of the maximum price election for one type of cling peach, you must choose 100 percent of the maximum price election for all other types of cling peaches.
(c) We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee, as necessary, based on our estimate of the effect of any situation listed in sections 3(b)(1) through (b)(4). If the situation occurred:
(1) Before the beginning of the insurance period, the yield used to establish your production guarantee will be reduced for the current crop year regardless of whether the situation was
(2) Or may occur after the beginning of the insurance period and you notify us by the production reporting date, the yield used to establish your production guarantee will be reduced for the current crop year only if the potential reduction in the yield used to establish your production guarantee is due to an uninsured cause of loss; or
(3) Or may occur after the beginning of the insurance period and you fail to notify us by the production reporting date, production lost due to uninsured causes equal to the amount of the reduction in yield used to establish your production guarantee will be applied in determining any indemnity (see section 11(c)(1)(ii)). We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the subsequent crop year.
6. Insured Crop.
(b) That is grown on trees that:
(1) Were commercially available when the trees were set out or have subsequently become commercially available;
(2) Are adapted to the area;
(3) Are grown on root stock that is adapted to the area;
(4) Are in compliance with the applicable State's Tree Fruit Agreement or related crop advisory board for the state (for each insured crop and type), when such regulations exist;
(5) Have produced at least 200 lugs of fresh market production per acre, or at least 2.2 tons per acre for processing crops, in at least one of the four most recent actual production history crop years, unless we inspect such acreage and give our approval in writing;
(6) Have, after being set out or grafted, reached at least the fifth growing season. However, we may give our approval in writing to insure acreage that has not reached this age if it meets the requirements of 6(b)(5); and
(7) Are grown in an orchard that, if inspected, is considered acceptable by us.
8. Insurance Period.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) September 30 for all nectarines and peaches;
(iii) In all states except California, September 30 for all fresh plums;
(iv) In California only, October 20 for all fresh plums; or
(v) As otherwise provided for specific counties or types in the Special Provisions.
11. Settlement of Claim.
(b) In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim by:
(1) Multiplying the insured acreage for each type by its respective production guarantee;
(2) Multiplying each result of section 11(b)(1) by the respective price election for the type and by the percent of the price election;
(3) Totaling the results of section 11(b)(2) (if there is only one type, the result of (3) will be the same as the result of (2));
(4) Multiplying the total production to count (see section 11(c)), for each type, by the respective price election and by the percent of the price election;
(5) Totaling the results of section 11(b)(4);
(6) Subtracting the result of section 11(b)(5) from the result of section 11(b)(3) (if there is only one type, the result of (6) will be the same as the result of (5)); and
(7) Multiplying the result of section 11(b)(6) by your share.
Scenario 1:
You select 75 percent coverage level and 100 percent of the price election on 50.0 acres of Type A stonefruit with 100 percent share in the unit. The production guarantee is 500.0 lugs per acre and the price election is $6.00 per lug. You harvest 5,000 lugs. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
(1) 50.0 acres × 500.0 lugs = 25,000-lug production guarantee;
(2) 25,000 lugs × $6.00 price election × 100 percent of the price election = $150,000 value of production guarantee;
(4) 5,000 harvested lugs × $6.00 price election × 100 percent of the price election = $30,000 value of production to count;
(6) $150,000-$30,000 = $120,000 loss; and
(7) 120,000 × 1.000 share = $120,000 indemnity payment.
Scenario 2:
In addition to the above information in Scenario 1, you have an additional 50.0 acres of Type B stonefruit with 100 percent share in the unit. The production guarantee is 300.0 lugs per acre and the price election is $3.00 per lug. You harvest 3,000 lugs. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
(1) 50.0 acres × 500.0 lugs Type A = 25,000-lug guarantee; and 50.0 acres × 300.0 lugs Type B = 15,000-lug guarantee;
(2) 25,000 lugs × $6.00 price election × 100 percent of the price election = $150,000 value of guarantee for Type A; and 15,000 lugs × $3.00 price election × 100 percent of the price election = $45,000 value of guarantee for Type B;
(3) $150,000 + $45,000 = $195,000 total value of production guarantee;
(4) 5,000 harvested lugs Type A × $6.00 price election × 100 percent of the price election = $30,000 value of production to count; and 3,000 harvested lugs Type B × $3.00 price election × 100 percent of the price election = $9,000 value of production to count;
(5) $30,000 + $9,000 = $39,000 total value of production to count;
(6) $195,000-$39,000 = $156,000 total loss; and
(7) $156,000 loss × 1.000 share = $156,000 indemnity payment.
(c) * * *
(4) Harvested fresh or processing stonefruit production that is eligible for quality adjustment as specified in section 11(c)(3) will be reduced as follows:
(i) When packed and sold as fresh fruit or when insured as a processing crop, by dividing the value per lug or ton of marketable production by the highest price election for the same type and multiplying the result (not to exceed 1.00) by the quantity of such production; or
(ii) For all other fresh stonefruit, by multiplying the number of tons that could be marketed by the value per ton and dividing that result by the highest price election available for the same type.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes two new restricted areas, amends an existing restricted area, and amends the boundaries description of the Special Use Airspace (SUA) Hog High North military operation area (MOA) that is contained in the Razorback Range Airspace Complex (RRAC) in the vicinity of Fort Chaffee, AR. Unlike restricted areas, which are designated under 14 CFR part 73, MOAs are not rulemaking airspace actions. However, since the proposed R-2402B airspace and the Hog High North MOA airspace overlap, the FAA included a description of the Hog High North MOA change in the NPRM. The Air National Guard (ANG) requested these airspace changes to permit more realistic aircrew training in modern tactics to be conducted within the RRAC and to enable more efficient use of the National Airspace System.
Effective date 0901 UTC, November 18, 2010.
Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
On Tuesday, March 30, 2010, the FAA published in the
MOAs are established to separate or segregate nonhazardous military flight activities from aircraft operating in accordance with instrument flight rules (IFR), and to advise pilots flying under VFR where these activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed through an active MOA only by agreement with the using agency and only when air traffic control can provide approved separation from the MOA activity. VFR pilots are not restricted from flying in an active MOA, but are advised to exercise caution while doing so. As noted in the NPRM, MOAs are nonregulatory airspace areas that are established administratively and published in the National Flight Data Digest (NFDD) rather than through rulemaking procedures. When a nonrulemaking action is an integral part of a rulemaking action, FAA procedures allow for the nonrulemaking changes to be included in the rulemaking action. Since the Hog High North MOA is an integral part of the Razorback Airspace Complex, the MOA change is included in this rule as well as being published in the NFDD.
The Hog High North MOA boundaries description is being amended to include the statement, “excluding R-2402B, when that restricted area is active.” This amendment will prevent airspace conflict with the overlapping R-2402B being established. The amended boundaries description will also be published in the NFDD; the rest of the MOA legal description is unchanged.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by establishing R-2402B and R-2402C, and amending R-2402 in the RRAC in the vicinity of Fort Chaffee, AR. At the request of the ANG, this action establishes two new restricted areas [R-2402B and R-2402C] to provide the vertical and lateral maneuvering airspace needed for military aircraft to conduct medium to high altitude standoff weapon delivery profiles.
Specifically, R-2402B will extend approximately 5 nautical miles (NM) to the east and 3 NM to the south of R-2402 (into Hog High North MOA), from 10,000 feet MSL to FL220; R-2402C will extend approximately 5 NM to the east and north of R-2402, from 13,000 feet MSL to FL220. The restricted areas will be activated when maneuvering airspace is required and cannot be activated without R-2402 being active also. When the restricted areas are not required for training requirements, that airspace will be released to Memphis ARTCC for access by nonparticipating aircraft, as appropriate.
To keep the naming convention of the R-2402 complex standardized, the “R-2402 Fort Chaffee, AR” restricted area is renamed “R-2402A Fort Chaffee, AR.” Additionally, to ensure the time of designation of all R-2402 restricted areas in the RRAC are consistent and cannot be misinterpreted, the time of designation for R-2402A is changed from “Monday through Sunday” to “daily.”
Section 73.34 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8S, effective February 16, 2010.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes and amends restricted airspace in the RRAC in the vicinity of Fort Chaffee, AR.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. The FAA based this determination on the analyses conducted by the Arkansas National Guard and that it is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Final rule; clarification for the rulemaking record.
This notice provides, for the rulemaking record, information that was inadvertently omitted from the final rule in the
Effective July 29, 2010.
Erin Fitzgerald, 202-693-3560; (this is not a toll-free number). TDD: 1-800-877-8339.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) published a final rule in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing the M/V Del Monte. This safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on a portion of the James River in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet within a 1500 foot radius of the M/V Del Monte. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic movement on specified waters of the James River to protect mariners from the hazards associated with live fire and explosive training events.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on August 2, 2010 to 4 p.m. on August 6, 2010.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0585 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or e-mail LT Tiffany Duffy, Chief Waterways Management, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-5580, e-mail
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone to facilitate mission-essential training directly related to military operations and national security. Accordingly, based on the military function exception to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and an effective date of 30 days after publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) are not required for this rule.
Even if the Coast Guard were required to comply with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), we find that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. This exercise is necessary to train and qualify Navy personnel in the use of weapons. This training is necessary to ensure that Navy personnel located within the Fifth Coast Guard District are properly trained and qualified before conducting military and national security operations for use in securing ports and waterways. Navy policy requires that Navy personnel meet and maintain certain qualification standards before being allowed to carry weapons on board vessels. Failure to conduct this required training at this time will result in a lapse in personnel qualification standards and, consequently, the inability of Navy personnel to carry out important national security functions at any time. It is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest to delay the issuance of this rule.
Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads was notified that the U.S. Navy will conduct a live fire and explosive training event onboard the M/V Del Monte in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet. The event is scheduled to take place from August 2, 2010 to August 6, 2010. Due to the need to protect mariners transiting on the James River in the vicinity of the exercise from the hazards associated with live fire and explosive events, the Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone bound by a 1500 foot radius around approximate position 37°06′11″ N/076°38′40″ W (NAD 1983). Access to this area will be temporarily restricted for public safety purposes.
The Coast Guard is establishing a 1500 foot radius safety zone on specified waters of James River around approximate position 37°06′11″ N/076°38′40″ W (NAD 1983) in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet. This safety zone is being established in the interest of public safety during the live fire and explosive training exercise and will be enforced from 8 a.m. on August 2, 2010 to 4 p.m. on August 6, 2010. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates and times. Except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone.
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. Although this regulation restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact.
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 transit or anchor in a portion of the James River from 8 a.m. on August 2, 2010 to 4 p.m. on August 6, 2010. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration; (ii) before the effective period of August 2, 2010, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.
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 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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
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 Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that will be in effect for only five days and is intended to keep mariners safe from the hazards associated with live fire and explosive exercises. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(2) A notice will be published in the
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the enforcement of the safety zones listed in paragraph (a) of this section and notice of suspension of enforcement by the means appropriate to affect the widest publicity, including broadcast
(d)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
In accordance with the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002, we are soliciting public comment regarding the list of select agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to animal or plant health, or to animal or plant products. The Act requires the biennial review and republication of the list of select agents and toxins and the revision of the list as necessary. Accordingly, we are soliciting public comment on the current list of select agents and toxins in our regulations and suggestions regarding any addition or reduction of the animal or plant pathogens currently on the list of select agents. In addition, we are soliciting public comment on the potential reorganization of the list of select agents and toxins based on the relative potential of each select agent or toxin to be misused to adversely affect human, plant or animal health. Such tiering of the list could allow for the application of different security measures for those select agents or toxins which pose a higher risk to animal or plant health if they were to be stolen or otherwise misused.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 30, 2010.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to (
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0070, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0070.
Ms. Aimee M. Hyten, Compliance Manager, APHIS Agriculture Select Agent Program, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 2, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5281.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 provides for the regulation of certain biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to both human and animal health, to animal health, to plant health, or to animal and plant products. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act within the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Veterinary Services (VS) select agents and toxins, listed in 9 CFR 121.3, are those that have been determined to have the potential to pose a severe threat to animal health or animal products. Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) select agents and toxins, listed in 7 CFR 331.3, are those that have been determined to have the potential to pose a severe threat to plant health or plant products. Overlap select agents and toxins, listed in 9 CFR 121.4, are those that have been determined to pose a severe threat to public health and safety, to animal health, or to animal products. Overlap select agents are subject to regulation by both APHIS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act for the Department of Health and Human Services.
Title II, Subtitle B of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (which is cited as the “Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002” and referred to below as the Act), section 212(a), provides, in part, that the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) must establish by regulation a list of each biological agent and each toxin that the Secretary determines has the potential to pose a severe threat to animal or plant health, or to animal or plant products.
In determining whether to include an agent or toxin in the list, the Act requires that the following criteria be considered:
• The effect of exposure to the agent or toxin on animal or plant health, and on the production and marketability of animal or plant products;
• The pathogenicity of the agent or the toxin and the methods by which the agent or toxin is transferred to animals or plants;
• The availability and effectiveness of pharmacotherapies and prophylaxis to treat and prevent any illness caused by the agent or toxin; and
• Any other criteria that the Secretary considers appropriate to protect animal or plant health, or animal or plant products.
Paragraph (a)(2) of section 212 of the Act requires the Secretary to review and republish the list of select agents and toxins every 2 years and to revise the list as necessary. To fulfill this statutory mandate, PPQ and VS each convene separate interagency working groups in order to review the lists of PPQ and VS select agents and toxins, as well as any overlap select agents and toxins, and develop recommendations regarding possible changes to the list using the four criteria for listing found in the Act. In this document, we are asking for
Reorganization of Current List of Select Agents and Toxins
We are also seeking public comment regarding potential reorganization of the list of select agents and toxins. Recent reports by the National Academies, the Executive Order 13486 Working Group, and the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity have recommended tiering the list of select agents and toxins based on the relative potential of each to be misused. If implemented, such tiering could allow for the application of different security measures for those select agents or toxins that pose a higher risk to animal or plant health if they were to be stolen or otherwise misused.
For those commenters who believe tiering the list of select agents and toxins is advisable, we also welcome recommendations as to what criteria should be used to designate high risk select agents and toxins. For example, potential tiering of the select agent and toxin list could reflect one or more of the following:
• The relative ease with which a particular select agent or toxin might be disseminated or transmitted from one animal to another or into the environment where it could produce a deleterious effect upon animal or plant health;
• The potential for high animal or plant mortality rates;
• The potential for a major animal or plant health impact;
• Select agents or toxins whose misuse might result in public panic or other social or economic disruption;
• Select agents or toxins whose use might require Federal, State, and/or local officials to take special action in planning for major animal or plant health disasters.
Additionally, we are interested in any potential corresponding changes to the security requirements of the current regulations that would be necessary to provide appropriate protection of higher tier select agents or toxins and whether such changes should be prescriptive or performance based.
At the conclusion of the working group review process, we will publish another document in the
This action has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
7 U.S.C. 8401; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, 371.3, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of July 2010.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.
The FAA is correcting a proposed airworthiness directive (AD) which published in the
This correction is effective July 29, 2010.
James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
On June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31330), we published a proposed AD, FR Doc. 2010-13314, in the
On page 31330, in the third column, under 14 CFR part 39, “Docket No. FAA-2010-0384” is corrected to read “FAA-2010-0725.”
On page 31331, in the first column, under
On page 31331, in the third column, under § 39.13 [Amended], in the fourth and fifth lines, “Docket No. FAA 2010-0384” is corrected to read “FAA-2010-0725.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Greenlee County Airport, Clifton/Morenci, AZ. To accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Greenlee County Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2010.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0634; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2010-0634 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0634 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-8”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Greenlee County Airport, Clifton/Morenci, AZ. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) SIAPs at the airport and would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Greenlee County Airport, Clifton/Morenci, AZ.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Greenlee County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove Class E airspace at St. George Municipal Airport, St. George, UT, as the airport will be closing, eliminating the need for controlled airspace. This action also would establish Class E airspace for the new St. George Municipal Airport located to the south of the original airport. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS), VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME), Localizer Type Directional Aid/Distance Measuring Equipment (LDA/DME) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the new St. George Municipal Airport, St. George, UT. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2010.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0660; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2010-0660 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-4) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0660 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-4”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St. George Municipal Airport, St. George, UT. The airport is closing, and SIAPs removed, eliminating the need for controlled airspace. This action also would establish Class E surface airspace within a 4.5-mile radius of the new St. George Municipal Airport; and Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface at the new airport. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS), VOR/DME and LDA/DME SIAPs at the new St. George Municipal Airport, St. George, UT. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009 is amended as follows:
Within a 4.5-mile radius of St. George Municipal Airport. This Class E airspace is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 25.8 miles northeast and 4 miles each side of the 030° bearing of the St. George Municipal Airport, and 20 miles southwest and 4 miles each side 200° bearing of the St. George Municipal Airport, and 15 miles west and 4 miles each side of the 260° bearing of the St. George Municipal Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within the 30-mile radius of lat. 36°48′52″ N., long. 113°29′24″ W., extending clockwise from the 030° bearing to the 360° bearing, thence from the 360° bearing 30-mile radius to lat. 37°31′02″ N., long. 113°21′25″ W., to lat. 37°23′09″ N., long. 113°04′34″ W., thence to the 030° bearing 30-mile radius.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone on the Elizabeth River in the vicinity of Town Point Reach, Norfolk, Virginia in support of the Elizabeth River Private Fireworks event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic movement on the specified portion of the Elizabeth River to protect mariners from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 30, 2010.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2010-0665 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or e-mail LT Tiffany Duffy, Chief Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 668-5580, e-mail
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2010-0665), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
On October 2, 2010 Dominion Fireworks will sponsor a fireworks display on the Elizabeth River at position 36°50′43″ N/076°17′55″ W (NAD 1983). Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, access to the Elizabeth River within 420 feet of the fireworks display will be temporarily restricted from 9 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. on October 2, 2010.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Elizabeth River in the vicinity of Town Point Reach, Norfolk, Virginia. This safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within 420 feet of the fireworks display located at position 36°50′43″ N/076°17′55″ W (NAD 1983). This regulated area will be established in the interest of public safety during the Elizabeth River Private Fireworks event and will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. on October 2, 2010. Access to the temporary safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
We developed this proposed 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 proposed 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. Although this proposed regulation restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) 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 proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zone will only be in place for a limited duration, is of a limited size and maritime advisories will be issued allowing the mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. However, this rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Elizabeth River from 9 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. on October 2, 2010.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Tiffany Duffy, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads at (757) 668-5580. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed 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 proposed 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 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed 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 (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone around a fireworks display. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under section 2.B.2. Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), or the Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05-0665 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone number (757) 668-5555.
(4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the “good neighbor” provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997 PM
Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-1119, by one of the following methods:
•
• Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
•
•
•
•
•
The State submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at the City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health Department, One Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6717; fax number (214) 665-7263; e-mail address
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the “good neighbor” provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997 PM
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires each state to develop a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA establishes NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state implementation plan (SIP). The content of the SIP is specified in section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA, and applicable regulations. SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable measures and various types of supporting information, such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide the air pollution regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the SIP is to ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through interstate transport of pollutants. This SIP requirement is specified in section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to that provision, each state's SIP must contain provisions adequate to prevent, among other things, emissions that significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQS in any other state.
States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these revisions to EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.
For air quality purposes, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County operates the same way as a state. The EPA treats and funds Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as it does states. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act allowed the establishment of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County AQCB as a local board and gave it authority to administer and enforce its air quality regulations within the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County boundaries. The AQCB has air quality jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, which encompasses the City of Albuquerque. The AQCB has the responsibility to adopt and implement the SIP as it applies to Bernalillo County. Therefore, AQCB has the responsibility to address 110(a)(2)(D) elements within Bernalillo county. The State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board has jurisdiction over all counties in New Mexico except Bernalillo County. The City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Division administers and staffs the air quality program for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its “Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM
EPA received a SIP revision adopted by AQCB on September 12, 2007, to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport; however, in this rulemaking EPA is addressing only the requirement that pertains to preventing sources in one state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM
In accordance with EPA's Guidance, the SIP revision addresses interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM
To support a determination of no “significant contribution” for the 1997 PM
The “Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality Rule Air Quality Modeling Analysis,” January 2004 (available at
CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and EPA is currently in the process of developing a replacement rule to address interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM
To support a determination of no “significant contribution” for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AQCB could not rely upon EPA's CAIR analysis because western states including New Mexico were not included in the area modeled for ozone. Instead, New Mexico and AQCB provided an additional modeling analysis of the impact of emissions from the State on projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. We note that modeling is not necessarily required to support this type of SIP submission, but this approach is consistent with EPA's Guidance to states for this SIP submission.
The modeling relied upon by AQCB is described in greater detail in its technical support document in the submission, and is available at
In the Guidance, we recommended a number of ways that states might elect to evaluate whether or not there is significant contribution, and we suggested that states might consider assessing the potential for contribution using assumptions similar to those used by EPA in CAIR. The State's and AQCB's analysis considered three factors comparable to those used by EPA as screening criteria in determining significance for states in CAIR: (a) The magnitude of the contribution, (b) the frequency of the contribution, and (c) the relative amount of contribution. The additional modeling yielded consistent results showing New Mexico emissions, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in any of the areas analyzed. New Mexico's highest overall contribution to total nonattainment for any nonattainment area at the time of the modeling was for Dallas/Fort Worth. New Mexico's highest impact on the Dallas/Fort Worth area was a daily average contribution of 0.4%, with a contribution average of 0.4 ppb. By EPA's own metrics (as established in CAIR and upheld by the court), these impacts are considered to be small, infrequent, and well below screening criteria established at 1% and 2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a single metric of the three contribution factors was found to be above the significance threshold established by EPA for any of the downwind counties. For more details please see the document titled “Modeling Data and Report for New Mexico from EPA Regions 6 and 7” that is included in the docket materials for this action.
At the time the modeling was performed, Denver's air quality was meeting the standard. (The 2004-2006 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was 81 ppb.) Therefore, the State and AQCB did not evaluate New Mexico's ozone impacts on Denver. Denver had a very high ozone season in 2007 that temporarily pushed the area into nonattainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV (awaiting final data validation) is 82 ppb so the area appears to now be back in attainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV is based upon 4th High values of 90 ppb in 2007, 79 ppb in 2008, and 79 ppb in 2009 (preliminary). With the last two 4th Highs of 79 ppb, Denver would have to monitor a 4th High value of 97 ppb in 2010 to go back into nonattainment for the period 2008-2010. Denver has not had a 4th High value of more than 92 ppb in the last 15 years, so it is unlikely that Denver will be in nonattainment at the end of the 2010 ozone season for the 84 ppb standard. Based on preliminary 2007-2009 data, Denver is attaining the standard, so Albuquerque/Bernalillo County emissions should not be
With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, we believe that the submission adequately establishes that sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are not significantly contributing to violations of that NAAQS in any other state. As noted previously, EPA will be acting on the other elements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate rulemakings.
We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico SIP which adequately demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS on any other state.
Information provided by New Mexico Environment Department and AQCB in the technical demonstration sufficiently demonstrates that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that the New Mexico SIP as it pertains to Albuquerque/Bernalillo County complies with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve the State of Nevada's request to redesignate to attainment the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area for the carbon monoxide national ambient air quality standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the carbon monoxide maintenance plan and motor vehicle emissions budgets for the area, as well as certain additional revisions to the Nevada State implementation plan. These revisions include the suspension of a local wintertime cleaner burning gasoline rule, and the relaxation of a State rule governing wintertime gasoline in Clark County. EPA's proposed approval is contingent upon receipt of a supplemental submittal from the State of Nevada containing a commitment to reinstate the existing vapor pressure limit in the State wintertime gasoline rule, if necessary, and thereby to implement the related contingency measure in the maintenance plan.
Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2010.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0585, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3. Mail or deliver: Karina O'Connor (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, (775) 833-1276,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This supplementary information is organized as follows:
EPA is proposing to approve the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's (NDEP's) request to redesignate to attainment the Las Vegas Valley
Specifically, we are proposing to approve NDEP's maintenance plan submittal dated September 18, 2008 titled
In connection with the CO Maintenance Plan, Clark County and the State of Nevada have decided to suspend or relax two gasoline-related regulations that formed part of the control strategy that has provided for attainment of the CO standard in Las Vegas Valley but that they believe are not needed for the purposes of maintaining the CO standard now that the CO standard has been attained. These are Clark County Air Quality Regulations (AQR) Section 54 (“Cleaner Burning Gasoline: Wintertime Program”) (herein, referred to as the “CBG Rule”), which establishes certain wintertime gasoline specifications related to sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbons (“aromatics”), and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) section 590.065 (herein referred to as the “Low RVP Rule”), which establishes a low Reid vapor pressure (RVP) specification for gasoline sold during the late fall and winter months in Clark County. We are proposing to approve the suspension of Clark County's CBG Rule and the relaxation of the State's Low RVP Rule because we conclude, in accordance with CAA section 110(l), that doing so would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS or any applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.
The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan includes reinstatement of the CBG Rule and the Low RVP Rule as contingency measures, as required under CAA section 175A(d). However, while Clark County, through adoption of the maintenance plan, has committed to reinstatement of the CBG Rule in accordance with the contingency provisions of the plan, the Nevada State Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the Low RVP Rule, has not yet made a similar commitment with respect to the Low RVP Rule. Thus, our approval of the Maintenance Plan and redesignation request is contingent upon the submittal, and EPA approval, of such a commitment as a revision to the Nevada SIP.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted in combustion processes. In most areas where elevated CO levels are found, CO comes primarily from tailpipe emissions of cars and trucks. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity and learning ability, and with illness and death for those who already suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly angina or peripheral vascular disease.
On April 30, 1971 (
Under section 110 of the Act, each State is required to adopt and submit to EPA a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS within each State. These plans are referred to as “State implementation plans” or “SIPs.” Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1970, SIPs were required to provide for attainment of the NAAQS within 3 years after EPA approval of the plan. However, many areas of the country did not attain the NAAQS within the statutory period.
In response, Congress amended the Act in 1977 to establish a new approach, based on area designations, for attaining the NAAQS, and on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962), we promulgated attainment status designations for all areas within each of the States. In the 1978 rulemaking, we designated Las Vegas Valley as a “nonattainment” area for the CO NAAQS based on monitored violations of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, required States to revise their SIPs by preparing, adopting and submitting attainment plans (for EPA approval) that set forth a strategy to achieve the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas. The original statutory deadline for attainment under the 1977 Amended Act was 1982, but extensions to 1987 were allowed if certain SIP requirements were met. In response, Clark County and the State of Nevada adopted and implemented various air quality plans and programs, including a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, to reduce CO levels in Las Vegas Valley. EPA approved these plans and programs at various times as revisions to the Nevada State implementation plan (SIP).
The CAA was significantly amended by Congress in 1990 to establish new attainment dates and planning and control requirements for areas, like Las Vegas Valley, that had failed to attain the NAAQS under the 1977 Amendments. Under the 1990 Amended Act, Las Vegas Valley was initially classified as a “moderate” nonattainment area for CO (based on a design value of 14.4 ppm) but was subsequently reclassified as a “serious” CO nonattainment area after having failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date (
In response to nonattainment classifications and related CAA requirements, Clark County and the State of Nevada adopted and implemented new air quality plans and programs, including a “serious” area attainment plan titled
In connection with the 2000 Las Vegas Valley CO Plan, we approved, among other plan elements, Clark County AQR Section 54 (“Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG): Wintertime Program”) (
In 2005, EPA determined that the Las Vegas Valley had attained the CO NAAQS by its applicable attainment deadline of December 31, 2000 [70 FR 31353 (June 1, 2005)], and had continued to attain through 2003 [70 FR 3174, at 3177 (January 21, 2005)]. This attainment determination did not constitute redesignation to attainment, however, because it did not include consideration or approval of the additional requirements for redesignation set forth in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E),
In 2006, EPA approved a Las Vegas Valley CO plan titled
EPA today is proposing to approve the State's request to redesignate the Las Vegas Valley to attainment for the CO NAAQS, and to approve the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan. We are also proposing approval of the suspension or relaxation of two specific control measures that had previously been approved into the SIP, but that Clark County has shown are no longer needed to maintain the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley: the County's CBG Rule and the State's Low RVP Rule. Our evaluation of the submittals and the redesignation request is provided in the following sections of this document.
Section 110(l) of the Act requires States to provide reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. In this action, we are proposing action on the following SIP revisions: The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, submitted by NDEP on September 18, 2008; and the suspended or relaxed wintertime gasoline regulations, submitted by NDEP on March 26, 2010.
Both of the SIP revision submittals cited above contain evidence that reasonable notice of a public hearing was provided to the public and that a public hearing was conducted prior to adoption. Specifically, notice of the availability of, and opening of a 30-day comment period on, the draft CO maintenance plan was published on several dates in a newspaper of general circulation within the Las Vegas area beginning on May 11, 2008. The Clark County Board of Commissioners adopted the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan by resolution on September 2, 2008 at the close of the public hearing. Appendix C to the plan documents the public review process used by the county to adopt the plan. Following adoption, Clark County DAQEM forwarded the plan to NDEP, the Governor of Nevada's designee for SIP matters, and NDEP then submitted the plan as a revision to the Nevada SIP to EPA for approval.
NDEP's March 26, 2010 SIP submittal documents the public review process used by the Clark County Board of Commissioners in suspending Section 54 (
The March 26, 2010 SIP revision submittal also documents the State Board of Agriculture's December 9, 2009 public hearing on, and subsequent adoption of, amendments to NAC section 590.065 (LCB File No. R111-08), effective January 28, 2010, including the relaxation of the RVP wintertime gasoline limit in Clark County from 9.0 to 13.5 pounds per square inch (psi). This action on the part of the Board of Agriculture was preceded by publication on September 16, 2009 by the Nevada Department of Agriculture of a notice of a workshop to be held on October 13, 2009 to solicit comments on amendments to NAC section 590.065, and by publication on November 4, 2009 of a notice of intent to act upon a regulation.
Based on the documentation submitted with the two SIP submittals and summarized above, we find that both SIP revisions cited above satisfy the procedural requirements of section 110(l) of the Act for revising SIPs.
The CAA establishes the requirements for redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation provided that the following criteria are met: (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Section 110 identifies a comprehensive list of elements that SIPs must include, including plan revisions meeting the requirements of part D (
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in a document entitled, “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published in the
For the reasons set forth below in section V of this document, we propose to approve NDEP's request for redesignation of the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS based on our conclusion that all of the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied. For the reasons set forth in section V.D.5 of this document, our proposed approval is contingent upon NDEP's submission of a commitment by the Nevada Department of Agriculture to reinstate the Low RVP Rule if necessary to address future violations of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley and thereby implement the related contingency measure in the Maintenance Plan.
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that we determine that the area has attained the NAAQS. EPA makes the determination as to whether an area's air quality is meeting the CO NAAQS based upon air quality data gathered at CO monitoring sites in the nonattainment area which have been entered into the Air Quality System (AQS) database. This data is reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR 50.8; EPA policy guidance as stated in a memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, entitled “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” dated June 18, 1990; and EPA's General Preamble at 57 FR 13535.
The 8-hour and 1-hour CO design values are used to determine attainment of CO areas, and the design values are determined by reviewing 8 quarters of data, or a total of two complete calendar years of data for an area. The 8-hour design value is computed by first finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values at each monitoring site for each year of the two calendar years prior to and including the attainment date. Then the higher of the “second high” values is used as the design value for the monitoring site, and the highest design value among the various CO monitoring sites represents the CO design value for the area.
The CO NAAQS requires that not more than one 8-hour average per year equals or exceeds 9.5 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9 and are not considered exceedances). If an area has a design value that is equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm, this means that there was a monitoring site where the second highest (non-overlapping) 8-hour average was measured to be equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm in at least one of the two years being reviewed to determine attainment for the area. This indicates that there were at least two values above the NAAQS during one year at that site and thus the NAAQS for CO was not met. Conversely, an 8-hour design value of less than 9.5 ppm indicates that the area has attained the CO NAAQS. The 1-hour CO design value is computed in the same manner. An area attains the one-hour CO NAAQS if the 1-hour design value is less than 35.5 ppm.
On June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31353), we determined that the Las Vegas Valley “serious” CO nonattainment area had attained the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (2000) based on complete quality-assured data showing a design value of the area (from Sunrise Acres station) for 1999-2000 of 8.2 ppm, eight-hour average, and 10.2 ppm, one-hour average. (The corresponding NAAQS are 9 ppm, eight-hour average, and 35 ppm, one-hour average.) We also found that Las Vegas Valley had continued to attain the standard through year 2003. As part of that determination, we reviewed the ambient CO monitoring network operated by Clark County DAQEM and found that it met or exceeded our requirements.
In our proposed determination that the area had attained by its attainment deadline (2000) (70 FR 3174, January 21, 2005), we described Clark County's CO monitoring network at that time as including 7 SLAMS sites, 4 NAMS sites, and 4 special purpose sites.
While the number of CO monitoring stations has been reduced, we conclude in our Technical Systems Audit Report (February 2010) that the network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of CO monitoring sites. Moreover, we note that the Sunrise Acres monitoring station, which is the site at which the highest CO concentrations have historically been recorded, remains among those that continue to be operated by Clark County DAQEM.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we reviewed complete, quality-assured monitoring data that are
Based on the AQS data presented above and the positive assessment of the Clark County DAQEM ambient CO monitoring network that we made in February 2010, we propose to determine that Las Vegas Valley has attained the CO NAAQS, and thus meets the criterion for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes of redesignation.
Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the general elements that a SIP must contain in order to be fully approved. Although section 110(a)(2) was amended in 1990, a number of the requirements did not change in substance, and therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment EPA-approved SIP met these requirements in Las Vegas Valley with respect to CO. As to those requirements that were amended, (
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements after Las Vegas Valley is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (
On numerous occasions over the past 38 years, NDEP has submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved applicable SIP submittals with respect to the Las Vegas Valley portion of the SIP. We propose to conclude that NDEP and Clark County have met all SIP requirements for Las Vegas Valley applicable for purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements). With the exception discussed below in Section V.B.2.l of this document, the SIP for Las Vegas Valley also has been approved as meeting applicable requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA.
The requirements that apply under part D (of Title I) of the Act to “serious” CO nonattainment areas are set forth in sections 172, 176, 187, and 211. In the General Preamble, we have issued guidance describing how we will review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under part D (of Title I) of the Act, including
Under CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 187(a)(7), with respect to a serious CO nonattainment area, States are required to a submit a SIP revision that provides, and a demonstration that the plan as revised will provide, for attainment of the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and provisions for such specific annual emission reductions as are necessary to attain the standard by that date. In 2004, in approving the 2000 Las Vegas Valley CO Plan, we approved the area's RFP demonstration under sections 172(c)(2) and 187(a)(7) and attainment demonstration under section 187(a)(7).
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires States to submit a SIP revision for nonattainment areas that provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT)) and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. RACM is a more general term that can refer to stationary, area or mobile sources while RACT is a term that refers to stationary sources.
Attainment of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley relied upon the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and five State or local control measures: The State's vehicle I/M program, the State's Low RVP Rule, Clark County's rules (AQR sections 53 (
Sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the Act require States to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual CO emissions for year 1990 from all sources within the nonattainment area. The inventory is to address actual CO emissions during the peak CO season for the area, and all stationary (generally referring to larger stationary source or “point” sources), area (generally referring to smaller stationary and fugitive (non-smokestack) sources), and mobile (on-road, nonroad, locomotive and aircraft) sources are to be included in the inventory. Section 187(a)(5) requires States to submit periodic (every three years) updates to the inventories required under section 187(a)(1).
We interpret the Act such that the emission inventory requirements of section 172(a)(3), 187(a)(1), and 187(a)(5) are satisfied by the inventory requirements of the maintenance plan.
Under section 172(c)(5), the CAA requires States to submit SIP revisions that establish certain requirements for new or modified stationary sources in nonattainment areas, including provisions to ensure that major new sources or major modifications of existing sources of nonattainment pollutants incorporate the highest level of control, referred to as the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and that increases in emissions from such stationary sources are offset so as to provide for reasonable further progress towards attainment in the nonattainment area. The process for reviewing permit applications and issuing permits for new or modified stationary sources of air pollution is referred to as “New Source Review” (NSR). With respect to nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment areas, this process is referred to as “nonattainment NSR.”
In 2004 (69 FR 54006, September 7, 2004), we approved Clark County's NSR rules as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(5).
For certain types of power plants in Clark County, NDEP rather than Clark County has the authority to issue air pollution permits under State law. In 2004, we approved a State rule (NAC section 445B.22083) that prohibits new power plants or major modification to existing power plants under State jurisdiction within the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area.
Based on our previous approvals of Clark County's NSR rules and NAC section 445B.22083, we find that the State has met the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5).
Sections 172(c)(9) and 187(a)(3) of the Act require a State to submit contingency measures that will be implemented if an area fails to make reasonable further progress (RFP), if VMT estimates in the attainment plan are exceeded, or if the area fails to attain by the applicable attainment date. In 2005, based on our determination that Las Vegas Valley had attained the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, we found that the CAA's requirement for the SIP to provide for CO contingency provisions under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 187(a)(3) no longer applies to Las Vegas Valley.
Under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, States were required to establish criteria and
In November 2008, EPA approved Clark County's transportation conformity criteria and procedures as meeting the related SIP requirements under part 51, subpart T (“Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Project Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws”).
In August 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which eliminated the requirement for States to adopt and submit conformity SIPs addressing general conformity requirements.
Under CAA section 187(a)(2)(A), States are required to submit a SIP revision for serious CO nonattainment areas that contains a forecast of VMT in the nonattainment area concerned for each year before the year in which the plan projects the CO standard will be attained, and must provide for annual updates of the VMT forecasts. In 2004, we approved VMT forecasts and the responsible agencies' commitments to revise and replace the VMT projections as needed and to monitor actual VMT levels in the future, under section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Act (
Under section 187(a)(6), the CAA requires States with serious CO nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision that provides for a vehicle I/M program that meets applicable Federal I/M requirements, including the “enhanced” I/M performance standard. In 2004, we approved the “alternate low” enhanced vehicle I/M program for Las Vegas Valley and Boulder City as meeting the requirements of CAA section 187(a)(6) and EPA's I/M Regulation (40 CFR part 52, subpart S (“Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements”).
Section 187(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act applies the requirements of section 182(d)(1) to serious CO nonattainment areas with the purpose of reducing CO emissions rather than emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Specifically, section 187(b)(2) requires States with a serious CO nonattainment area to submit a SIP revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures (collectively, “TCMs”) to offset any growth in CO emissions from growth in VMT or numbers of vehicle trips in such area and to reduce motor vehicle CO emissions as necessary, in combination with other emission reductions requirements, to provide for RFP. As noted above, we approved the CO RFP demonstration for Las Vegas Valley as part of our approval of the Las Vegas Valley 2000 CO Plan.
EPA has concluded that States are not required to submit such measures if the SIP includes a demonstration that, despite growth in projected VMT, CO emissions will decline each year through the attainment year.
The Las Vegas Valley 2000 CO Plan includes CO emissions inventories for a base year (1996) and the attainment year (2000) that show a sharp decline in CO motor vehicle emissions during the 1996 through 2000 period.
Based on our 2004 approval of the emissions inventories and RFP demonstration from the Las Vegas Valley 2000 CO Plan that show that no additional TCMs are required to offset VMT-related emissions increases or to provide RFP, we find that the TCM-related requirements of CAA section 187(b)(2) for Las Vegas Valley have been met.
Under sections 187(b)(3) and 211(m), the CAA requires States with serious CO nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision that provides for an oxygenated gasoline program. Such a program must require gasoline to be blended to contain not less than 2.7% oxygen by weight during the period of the year during which CO levels are elevated (
CAA section 187(d) (“CO Milestone”) applies to serious CO areas and requires: (1) The State to submit a demonstration that the area has achieved certain specific annual emission reductions; (2) EPA to determine whether the demonstration is adequate; and (3) the State to submit a plan revision, if EPA notifies the State that the CO milestone demonstration is inadequate, that implements CAA section 182(g)(4) economic incentive and transportation control programs sufficient to achieve the specific annual emission reductions by the attainment date. EPA has not approved a CO Milestone demonstration for Las Vegas Valley, but, as explained below, the CO Milestone requirement is linked to the RFP requirement in section 187(a)(7), and because RFP has no meaning when the area has attained the standard, the CO Milestone requirement similarly is no longer meaningful and no corresponding SIP revision is required to be approved for purposes of redesignation.
In some designated nonattainment areas, monitored data demonstrates that the NAAQS have already been achieved. Based on its interpretation of the Act, EPA has determined that certain SIP submission requirements of part D, subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the Act do not apply for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests and therefore we do not require certain submissions for an area that has attained the NAAQS. These include RFP requirements, attainment demonstrations and contingency measures, because these provisions have the purpose of helping achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
The Clean Data Policy is the subject of two EPA memoranda setting forth our interpretation of the provisions of the Act as they apply to areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in a final rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of its Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).
EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (Seitz memo), and our December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (Page memo), are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions of subparts 1 and 3 applicable to CO. EPA's interpretation of how the provisions of the Act apply to areas with “clean data” is not logically limited to ozone, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (“fine particles” or PM-2.5), and PM-10, because the rationale is not dependent upon the type of pollutant. Our interpretation that an area that is attaining the standard is relieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP and to provide an attainment demonstration and contingency measures pursuant to part D of the CAA, pertains whether the standard is CO, 1-hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, PM-2.5, or PM-10.
The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant standard of certain part D, subpart 1 and 2 (sections 171 and 172) obligations, applies equally as well to part D, subpart 3, which contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions for CO nonattainment areas. As we have explained in the 8-hour ozone Phase 2 Final Rule, our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, and our approval of PM-10 SIPs, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an area subject to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (
With respect to RFP, CAA section 171(1) states that, for purposes of part D of title I, RFP:
Section 187(a)(7) states that the SIP for moderate CO areas with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm must:
It is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further specific annual emission reductions are necessary or meaningful. With respect to CO areas, this interpretation is supported by language in section 187(d)(3), which mandates that a State that fails to achieve the milestone must submit a plan that assures that the State achieves the “specific annual reductions in carbon monoxide emissions set forth in the plan by the attainment date.” Section 187(d)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve the milestone does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP and specific annual emissions reductions requirements will have already been fulfilled.
As noted above, CAA section 187(d), CO Milestone, applies to serious CO areas and requires the State to submit a demonstration that the area has achieved certain specific annual emission reductions. EPA interprets this provision consistent with its interpretation of section 182(g) in subpart 2.
Thus, while Las Vegas Valley does not have an approved SIP with respect to the CO Milestone demonstration, we believe that, for the reasons set forth here and established in our prior “clean data” memoranda and rulemakings, a CO nonattainment area that has “clean data” should be relieved of the part D, subpart 3 obligation to provide the CAA section 187(d) CO milestone demonstration. Based on our 2005 determination that Las Vegas Valley attained the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and the above detailed rationale, we conclude that the requirement for a CO milestone demonstration under section 187(d) no longer applies to Las Vegas Valley.
Based on our evaluation of the various SIP requirements and submittals discussed above, we propose to find that the State has a fully approved SIP for section 110 and part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation of Las Vegas Valley for the CO NAAQS, and that the criteria for redesignation in section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) are met.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment unless EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable regulations. If EPA makes such a determination, then the criterion is satisfied.
The 2000 and 2005 Las Vegas Valley CO plans credit the following control measures in demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley: the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program; the State's vehicle I/M program; the State's Low RVP Rule (NAC section 590.065); Clark County's wintertime gasoline requirements, including Clark County AQR Section 53 (“Oxygenated Gasoline Program”) and the CBG Rule; and to a lesser extent, the State's Alternative Fuels for Government Fleets Program and RTC's voluntary TCM/TDM program. All of the State and local control measures listed above have been approved into the SIP and are thus Federally enforceable.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program has contributed to improved air quality through the gradual, continued turnover and replacement of older vehicle models with newer models manufactured to meet increasingly stringent Federal tailpipe emissions standards. The emissions reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program are reflected in the emissions inventories and maintenance demonstration discussed later in this document through the use of EPA's MOBILE emission factor model for on-road motor vehicles. The State and local control measures further reduce CO emissions from on-road motor vehicles, the single largest source category in the CO emissions inventory for Las Vegas Valley.
A rough sense of the effectiveness of the control measures to reduce CO emissions can be gained by a comparison between area-wide CO emissions in 1996 (a nonattainment year) with those in 2006 (an attainment year). In 1996, area-wide CO emissions in Las Vegas Valley were estimated to be approximately 662 tons per day (average winter weekday), and in 2006, despite an increase in population and VMT of approximately 90% and 70%, respectively, area-wide CO emissions dropped approximately 10% (to 581 tons per day average winter weekday).
With respect to permanence and enforceability, none of the State or local control measures relied upon for attainment have sunset clauses, and all would continue to be implemented under the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, with the exception of the State's Low RVP Rule, and the County's CBG Rule.
With respect to the connection between the emissions reductions and the improvement in air quality, the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan provides a demonstration that the air quality improvement in Las Vegas Valley, that resulted in attainment of the CO NAAQS by 2000 and continued attainment since then, is due to emission reductions from implementation of the control measures discussed above and is not the result of a local economic downturn or unusual or extreme weather patterns. The demonstration shows that from 1990 to 2007, despite increases in population, employment growth, increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and strong economic conditions, CO levels decreased. The demonstration also examined wintertime meteorological data for the years 1998 through 2007 to determine if favorable meteorology influenced CO levels. The data showed that only a few periods had favorable meteorology.
Thus, we find that the improvement in CO air quality in Las Vegas Valley is the result of permanent and enforceable emissions reductions from a combination of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and EPA-approved State and local control measures. As such, we propose to find that the criterion for redesignation set forth at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is satisfied.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. We interpret this section of the Act to require, in general, the following core elements: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and contingency plan.
Under CAA section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency provisions, that EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. Based on our review and evaluation of the plan, as detailed below, we are proposing to approve the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan because we believe that it meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
The plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to identify a level of emissions in the area that is sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. This inventory is to be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and should represent emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. The inventory should also be based on actual “CO season data” (
In this case, we have already approved an “attainment year” emissions inventory in that we approved the 2006 emissions inventory contained in the 2005 CO plan. The emissions inventories in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan represent updates to the previously approved emissions inventories in the 2005 CO Plan. As with the previous plan, the emission inventories in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance are comprehensive, including emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, nonroad mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources, and represent CO season data (weekday in December). As was the case with the inventories in the 2000 and 2005 CO attainment plans for Las Vegas Valley, the CO inventories in the Maintenance Plan are not used directly to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard, but they reflect the same methods, factors, and assumptions used to develop the CO emission rates used for the dispersion modeling analysis which provides the basis for the maintenance demonstration.
As noted in our proposed approval of the 2005 CO Plan, the 2005 CO Plan provided a comprehensive revision to the base year (1996) emissions inventory and future year emissions projections reflecting updated underlying data, such as population and VMT forecasts, and updated methods, such as MOBILE6.2 and NONROAD2004. The 2005 CO Plan presented an emissions inventory for years 2006, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan presents emissions inventories for 2008, 2010, and 2020 that were developed using similar emissions calculations procedures, models, and assumptions as were used for the 2005 CO Plan (and described in detail in our proposed approval of the 2005 CO Plan at 71 FR 26910, at 26913-26915, May 9, 2006), but that were revised to reflect use of:
• Updated population and vehicle activity projections developed by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) (from RTC's FY2006-2030 Regional Transportation Plan, approved by RTC in October 2006);
• Updated TransCAD travel demand model output from RTC;
• Revised wintertime gasoline properties that assume relaxation of the RVP limit from 9.0 psi to 13.5 psi, and suspension of the County's CBG Rule (
• An updated emissions factor model (NONROAD2005, Core Model Version 2005a, February 2006) to estimate emissions for the nonroad source category; and
• Updated emissions information for Nellis Air Force Base.
We have summarized the emissions projections in table 2, below. As shown
Based on our review and prior approval of the emissions inventories (and related documentation) from the 2005 CO plan, and our review of the changes to the earlier-approved inventories, we find that the 2006 emission inventory from the 2005 CO Plan suffices as an attainment inventory for Las Vegas Valley, and that the emissions inventories in the Maintenance Plan reflect the latest planning assumptions and emissions models and provide a comprehensive and reasonably accurate forecast of CO emissions in Las Vegas Valley for years 2010 and 2020. As described in the next section in this document, dispersion modeling results derived from the same emissions methods, factors and assumptions used to develop the inventories provide the basis for the demonstration of maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 2020.
CAA section 175A(a) requires that the maintenance plan “provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” Generally, a State may demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS by either showing that future emissions will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emissions rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. For areas that are required under the Act to submit modeled attainment demonstrations, the maintenance demonstration should use the same type of modeling. Calcagni memorandum, page 9. Because the attainment demonstration for Las Vegas Valley in the 2000 CO Plan, and revised in the 2005 CO Plan, relied upon modeling techniques, the CO Maintenance Plan also relies on modeling techniques to demonstrate maintenance of the standard through the initial maintenance period.
The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan builds upon, and updates, previous modeling efforts conducted, most recently, in support of attainment demonstration in the 2005 CO Plan. Like the previous approved plan, the maintenance plan includes both area-wide modeling analysis and micro-scale modeling analyses at heavily-traveled intersections and local airports. As before, area-wide analysis, was conducted using the Urban Airshed Model (UAM), and the micro-scale analyses were conducted using CAL3QHC for local intersections, and the Emissions Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) for the local airports. Generally, the micro-scale analyses combine the results of UAM modeling with those using either CAL3QHC (for intersections) or EDMS (for airports) to generate worst-case maximum CO concentrations in the various analysis years. The maintenance demonstration is discussed on pages 7-6 through 7-14 of the Maintenance Plan, and at more length in appendix B to the plan.
The Maintenance Plan provides an area-wide UAM-based modeling demonstration of maintenance from year 2008 through year 2020 using December 8-9, 1996 episode conditions (which is the same episode used in the 2000 and 2005 CO plans) to determine peak CO concentrations. The UAM modeling for the Maintenance Plan uses updated emission inventories (
In the area-wide modeling demonstration, spatial patterns of predicted 8-hour CO are similar to those predicted by previous modeling in the 2005 CO plan. While the CO concentrations estimated for the Maintenance Plan are higher than those estimated in previous modeling completed for the 2005 CO Plan (due to the suspended/relaxed gasoline requirements assumed for the maintenance plan), they are below the 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm and decrease over time. Also, as in previous modeling, the area-wide impact of McCarran Airport increases over time with peak values increasing around the airport due to growth in airport activities.
As noted above, in addition to the area-wide modeling effort, two micro-scale models, CAL3QHC and EDMS, were used to predict maximum CO concentrations at potential hot spot receptors at heavily traveled intersections and at local area airports. CAL3QHC is used to predict the micro-scale impacts of vehicles operating at congested intersections. Vehicles operating under congested conditions spend more time in idle mode that can contribute to high levels of CO near the roadways. As in the 2005 CO plan, micro-scale modeling was completed for three intersections (1) Eastern Avenue/Charleston Blvd., (2) Eastern Avenue/Fremont Street, and (3) Fremont Street/Charleston Blvd. These three intersections comprise the “5 points” area, which is near the Sunrise Acres CO monitoring station. Traffic data from the 2005 CO Plan were scaled based on updated TransCAD transportation modeling outputs and combined with emission factors from MOBILE6.2 and worst-case meteorological data to predict local hotspot concentrations. These hourly results from the micro-scale model were then combined with hourly concentrations from the background UAM grid cell to compute maximum running 8-hour concentrations. The combined results from CAL3QHC and UAM are shown in table 4, below.
To model the impact of airport sources, EDMS was used again as in the 2005 CO Plan. This model was developed for evaluating the specific emission sources typically located at airports. The hotspot results from EDMS were combined with the results of the UAM analysis to predict the concentrations at receptors around the airports. The Maintenance Plan presents the results of the combined UAM and EDMS models for all the future years in table 3-3 of appendix B. No values were modeled above the 9.0 ppm CO standard at any publicly accessible receptor location. The peak combined concentration at McCarran International Airport for future years is 8.9 ppm for 2020.
Lastly, UAM was used to identify a safety margin
To identify a safety margin consistent with maintenance of the CO standard through the initial maintenance period, the maintenance plan scaled up the on-road motor vehicle emissions initially estimated and used for concentration modeling purposes (
The target CO concentration was reached at the point where on-road motor vehicle emissions were increased to 658 tpd (13% higher than baseline 2008 on-road emissions), 686 tpd (18% higher), and 704 tpd (23% higher), in 2008, 2010, and 2020, respectively.
Based on our review of the documentation provided in the CO maintenance plan as summarized above, we find that the revised modeling results are consistent with the underlying emission estimates and reflect reasonable methods and assumptions. Further, we find that the revised modeling results demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley through 2020.
Continued ambient monitoring of an area is generally required over the maintenance period. As discussed in section V.A of this document, CO is currently monitored by Clark County DAQEM at five stations within Las Vegas Valley. In the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan (
NDEP, the State Board of Agriculture, and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners have the legal authority to implement and enforce the requirements of the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any emission control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct CO NAAQS violations. To verify continued attainment, Clark County DAQEM commits in the Maintenance Plan to the continued operation of a CO monitoring network that meets EPA monitoring requirements, and also to conduct studies to determine whether additional or re-sited CO monitors are necessary in response to measured changes in mobile source parameters (
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that maintenance plans include contingency provisions, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area. Such provisions must include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area.
Under section 175A(d), contingency measures identified in the contingency plan do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a specified event. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific timeline for action by the State. As a necessary part of the plan, the State should also identify specific indicators or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan identifies four specific contingency measures: RTC's TDM/TCM program, the State's Alternative Fuels for Government Fleets Program, Clark County's CBG Rule, and the State's Low RVP Rule. All of these measures have been approved by EPA into the SIP and are currently in effect. The first two measures would remain in effect but are identified as “contingency measures” in the Maintenance Plan because the maintenance demonstration takes no emissions credit for these programs. EPA has concluded that contingency measures need not be new measures that would be triggered by a violation, but may consist of early implementation of measures that provide surplus reductions beyond those needed for attainment or maintenance.
With respect to the Clark County's CBG Rule and the State Board of Agriculture's Low RVP Rule, we are proposing to approve the suspension of the former, and the relaxation of the latter, in this document. As noted above, contingency provisions must include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area. In this instance, Clark County's CBG Rule and the State's Low RVP Rule are two measures that were contained in the SIP prior to redesignation and thus must be included as contingency measures in the maintenance plan. The Maintenance Plan does in fact list both measures as contingency measures (
The contingency provisions of the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan (
However, if a second exceedance occurs at the same monitoring site within a consecutive two-year period, DAQEM will make a recommendation to the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (within six months of the second exceedance) from among those contingency measures specifically listed in the Maintenance Plan, as described above, including reinstatement of Clark County's CBG Rule and reinstatement of the State's Low RVP Rule. The Maintenance Plan would not require implementation of these contingency measures unless the area experiences a violation of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (
Upon our review of the plan, as summarized above, we find that the contingency provisions of the Maintenance Plan clearly identify specific contingency measures, contain tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed, contain a description of the process of recommending and implementing contingency measures, and contain specific timelines for action. Thus, we conclude that, with the exception of the absence of a commitment by the State Department of
CAA section 175A(b) provides that States shall submit a SIP revision 8 years after redesignation providing for maintaining the NAAQS for an additional 10 years. The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan provides that Clark County DAQEM will prepare a revised maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to attainment.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
Maintenance plan submittals must specify the maximum emissions of transportation-related CO emissions allowed in the last year of the maintenance period,
The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan includes the CO MVEBs shown in table 5 below. The budgets are based on table 7-9 of the Maintenance Plan and other documentation in section 7.5 of the plan.
In setting MVEBs, States generally use the on-road motor vehicle portion of the emission inventories in the associated plan. Clark County, however, did not cap MVEBs at projected motor vehicle emissions levels. Because overall projected levels of emissions from all sources are expected to be significantly less than the levels necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS, Clark County scaled up emissions in the maintenance demonstration to set MVEBs at a higher level. As long as emissions from all sources are lower than needed to provide for continued maintenance of the standard, the State may allocate additional emissions to future mobile source growth by assigning a portion of the safety margin to the MVEBs (
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate and approvable for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following paragraphs provide our review of the budgets in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan against our adequacy criteria and provide the basis for our proposed approval of the MVEBs.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing. The Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA on September 18, 2008 by NDEP's Administrator, the Governor of Nevada's designee for all SIP revision submittals. This SIP submittal documents that the Clark County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on the plan on September 2, 2008, and adopted the plan on that same date. Therefore, we conclude that the plan and related budgets meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with Federal, State and local agencies, whether full implementation plan documentation was provided to EPA, and whether EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed. Consultation for development of this plan largely consisted of public meetings (
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the MVEBs are clearly identified and precisely quantified. The Maintenance Plan clearly identifies and precisely quantifies the CO MVEBs for the years 2008, 2010 and 2020 on page 7-15 of the plan (and table 5, above). We conclude therefore that the plan and related budgets meet the adequacy criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the MVEBs, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to a given SIP submission). The Maintenance Plan shows how the MVEBs and related safety margins are consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 2020 (
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we review a plan to determine whether the MVEBs are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy plan or maintenance plan. The MVEBs in the Maintenance Plan appropriately reflect the measures relied upon for continued maintenance of the CO standard in Las Vegas Valley, including the wintertime oxygenated gasoline program and the State's vehicle I/M program, as well as the decision by State and Clark County to suspend or relax certain other wintertime gasoline requirements (
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we review a submitted plan to determine whether revisions to previously submitted plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emissions factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled and changes in control measures). There are no previously submitted CO maintenance plans for the Las Vegas Valley. Changes in the MVEBs relative to the previously approved MVEBs from the attainment plans (
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review the State's compilation of public comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any SIP revision. Appendix C of the Maintenance Plan submittal documents the notice for public comments on the draft Maintenance Plan and documents the proceedings at the public hearing. The only comments on the draft Maintenance Plan were submitted by EPA, and appendix C (to the Maintenance Plan) documents how the draft Maintenance Plan was amended in response to those comments. We find Clark County DAQEM's responses to our comments on the draft plan to be acceptable, and thus, we find that the Maintenance Plan meets the criterion for adequacy under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5).
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the MVEBs in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan meet the requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), and that the maintenance plan as a whole will ensure maintenance of the CO NAAQS through the last year of the maintenance plan. Thus, we propose to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes. If we finalize our action as proposed, RTC (which is the area's Metropolitan Planning Organization) and the U.S. Department of Transportation will be required to use the CO MVEBs from the Maintenance Plan for future transportation conformity determinations.
EPA generally first reviews budgets submitted with an attainment, RFP, or maintenance plan for adequacy, prior to taking action on the plan itself. The availability of the Las Vegas CO Maintenance Plan with the 2008, 2010, and 2020 budgets was announced for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web page on September 30, 2008, at:
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan satisfies the applicable CAA requirements, including CAA section 175A, and thus, we propose to approve it as a revision to the Nevada SIP under section 110(k)(3), contingent upon receipt of a commitment from the State Department of Agriculture to seek reinstatement by the State Board of Agriculture of the Low RVP Rule if needed to remedy a future violation of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley.
As noted previously, NDEP's March 26, 2010 SIP revision includes an amended State fuels rule that relaxes the existing wintertime gasoline requirement for RVP (referred to herein as the “Low RVP Rule”), and includes the suspension by Clark County of their local Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) rule (referred to herein as the “CBG Rule”). The CBG Rule established sulfur and aromatics limits for gasoline sold in Clark County during the period from November 1 to March 31.
On December 9, 2009, the State Board of Agriculture amended NAC section 590.065 (
In our 2003 proposed approval of the Low RVP Rule, we considered whether the RVP specification is preempted under the Act. Section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts certain State fuel regulations by prohibiting a State from prescribing or attempting to enforce “any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive” for the purposes of motor vehicle emission control, if EPA has prescribed under section 211(c)(1), “a control or prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component of the fuel or fuel additive,” unless the State
Further, in 2004, EPA approved CBG into the Nevada SIP.
In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amended section 211(c)(4)(C) by including a number of provisions addressing State “boutique”fuel programs.
On December 28, 2006, EPA published a notice containing the final interpretation, which was by fuel type, of the EPAct provisions in the
The EPAct also placed the following three additional restrictions on EPA's authority to waive preemption by approving a State fuel program into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C):
• First, EPA may not approve a State fuel program into the SIP if it would cause an increase in the total number of fuel types approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004.
• Second, in cases where EPA approval of a fuel would increase the total number of fuel types on the list but not above the number approved as of September 1, 2004, because the total number of fuel types in SIPs is below the number of fuel types as of September 1, 2004, we are required to make a finding after consultation with DOE, that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas.
• Third, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP, EPA may not approve a State fuel into a SIP unless that fuel type is already approved in at least one SIP in the applicable PADD. CAA Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(I), (IV) and (V).
Therefore, EPAct also amended section 211(c)(4)(C) to make any new EPA approvals of State fuels under section 211(c)(4)(C) significantly more difficult by, for example, limiting the total number of approved “boutique” fuel types to the number of fuel types approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004. If there is no room on the list, for example, then EPA cannot approve any more boutique fuels regardless of the needs of a given area to address air pollution problems.
Lastly, CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III) requires EPA to remove a fuel from the boutique fuels list described above if a fuel either ceases to be included in a SIP or if a fuel in a SIP is identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by EPA. CBG will not cease to be included in the SIP because, as earlier discussed, CBG is currently in the SIP and will continue in the SIP as a specific contingency measure in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, and because we intend to synchronize our final actions on the Maintenance Plan and the (suspended) CBG Rule (and thereby avoid a gap in time when the CBG Rule would not be either an active or contingency measure in the SIP). Thus, in today's action, we are not proposing to remove CBG from the boutique fuels list. In addition, since we are not approving any new fuel into the SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), no issues are raised concerning the three restrictions on such an approval described above.
As a general matter, under CAA section 110(l), EPA may approve relaxations or suspensions of control measures so long as doing so would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS or would otherwise conflict with applicable CAA requirements. In this instance, the relaxation of the Low RVP Rule and the suspension of the CBG Rule (and related sulfur and aromatics content limits) would not conflict with any applicable CAA requirement. However, the changes to the two fuels rules would affect the properties of the gasoline sold in Clark County during the winter and would thereby change vehicular emissions relative to those that would occur without these changes with concomitant effects on ambient pollutant concentrations (and potentially interfering with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS).
To specify the changes in the properties of wintertime gasoline due to the changes in the fuels rules, Clark County DAQEM commissioned a study by ENVIRON and Sierra Research. The study was submitted as appendix A to the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan. As far as changes to sulfur content are concerned, the study authors predict
As far as aromatics are concerned, the study predicts an increase in aromatic content from the current (2006) wintertime average of approximately 20% (by volume) to approximately 23%, based on the average aromatics content in gasoline nationwide.
With respect to CO, we conclude that the changes in wintertime gasoline specifications due to the rules changes would not interfere with the NAAQS based on the modeling results documented in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan and our proposed approval of the Maintenance Plan herein. The modeling conducted for the Maintenance Plan relies on emissions factors that take no credit for either the CBG Rule or the Low RVP Rule and still demonstrates maintenance of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley through 2020.
For the ozone NAAQS, we recognize that a portion of Clark County is designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus, absent modeling results or other convincing evidence showing non-interference, we would not normally approve a SIP revision that would result in an increase in ozone precursors within the nonattainment area. However, in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, Clark County DAQEM contends that there would be no interference with the ozone NAAQS in this instance because the effect of the gasoline fuel changes is limited to the winter months whereas ozone exceedances occur during the summertime.
With respect to the 1987 (24-hour average) PM-10, Las Vegas Valley is classified as a “serious” nonattainment area.
In the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, Clark County DAQEM contends that the changes in wintertime gasoline specifications would not interfere with the PM-10 NAAQS based on the determination in the approved serious area PM-10 plan that vehicular exhaust is not a significant source of PM-10 in Las Vegas Valley.
First of all, Clark County DAQEM is correct in pointing out that vehicular exhaust was determined not to be a significant source of PM-10 emissions in Las Vegas Valley for the purposes of implementing the BACM requirement. We also believe that Clark County DAQEM's most recent inventory presents reasonable estimates of existing sources of PM-10 in Las Vegas Valley. As a general matter, we do not agree that removal of fuels controls has no affect on vehicular exhaust emissions of PM-10, but we recognize that the extent to which the higher aromatics content (from 20% to 23%, by volume) and higher RVP (from 8.8 to 13.5 psi) would affect PM-10 from vehicle exhaust, and whether that effect would be positive or negative, is difficult to predict because EPA's MOBILE emissions factor model, which was used in the development of the Maintenance Plan, does not have the capability to quantify the resulting emissions changes.
However, even assuming the effect would be an increase in PM-10 from vehicle exhaust, we can still find that the changes in wintertime gasoline specifications due to the fuels changes would not interfere with attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, because, in addition to the minimal impact of vehicular emissions on PM-10 concentrations in Las Vegas Valley (based on PM-10 inventories), the area appears to have attained the standard due to the implementation and enforcement of fugitive dust controls. To determine whether Las Vegas Valley is attaining the PM-10 standard, we reviewed 2007-2009 PM-10 monitoring data from the various monitoring stations for which Clark County DAQEM reports data into EPA's Air Quality Database (AQS). The review of the data reveals two exceedances (
We do not believe that a hypothetical, incremental increase in PM-10 emissions, from a source category (vehicular exhaust) estimated to contribute less than 1% to the overall emissions inventory, would have a discernible effect on ambient PM-10 concentrations. This lack of discernible effect, coupled with an attainment finding, provides us with a sufficient rationale for concluding that the changes in wintertime gasoline properties, expected to occur with the relaxation of the Low RVP Rule and the suspension of the CBG Rule, would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley.
With respect to the 1997 (annual) and 2006 (24-hour) PM-2.5 NAAQS, Las Vegas Valley and the various other hydrographic areas that comprise Clark County, are designated as “unclassifiable/attainment” areas.
As discussed above for PM-10, the changes to wintertime gasoline properties due to the relaxed Low RVP Rule and suspended County CBG Rule could result in increases in PM-10 emissions from vehicular exhaust. All of the PM-10 from vehicular exhaust can be assumed also to be fine particulate matter (
Based on our previous approvals of NAC section 590.065 (
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is proposing to approve NDEP's submittal dated September 18, 2008 of the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Nevada SIP because we find that it satisfies the requirements of section 175A of the CAA to include a reasonably accurate and comprehensive attainment inventory, an adequate maintenance demonstration, contingency provisions, and commitments to continue operation of an acceptable ambient monitoring network to verify continued attainment. Final approval of the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan would make Federally enforceable the commitments, such as the commitment to continue operation of an adequate CO monitoring network, and the contingency provisions, contained therein. In addition, we are proposing to approve for transportation conformity purposes the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan for years 2008, 2010, and 2020 because we find they meet the criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e). The budgets for 2008, 2010 and 2020 are 658 tons per day, 686 tons per day, and 704 tons per day, respectively (based on typical weekday during the winter).
Based in part on our proposed approval of the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, we are also proposing to approve NDEP's September 18, 2008 request to redesignate Las Vegas Valley to attainment for the CO NAAQS. In doing so, we find that the area has met all of the criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E),
Contingency provisions in maintenance plans must include the measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation, and for one such contingency measure included in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plans, the State's Low RVP Rule, the responsible State agency (State Department of Agriculture) has not yet made the necessary commitment. Thus, our proposed approval of the Maintenance Plan and redesignation request is contingent upon submittal (and approval by EPA) of such a commitment as a revision to the Nevada SIP.
We are also proposing to approve, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, NDEP's March 26, 2010 submittal of the
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days.
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely propose to approve a State plan and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, these actions:
• Are not “significant regulatory actions” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, National parks, Wilderness areas.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Availability of Amendment 17A to South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan; request for comments.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. The amendment proposes to establish a rebuilding plan for red snapper, specify a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), specify the optimum yield (OY), specify the value for the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and specify an annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measures (AMs) for red snapper. Amendment 17A would also prohibit harvest and possession of red snapper in or from Federal waters of the South Atlantic and in or from state waters for vessels holding a Federal snapper-grouper permit, and implement an area closure that extends from southern Georgia to northern Florida where all harvest and possession of snapper-grouper would be prohibited (except when fishing with black sea bass pots or spearfishing gear for species other than red snapper). Additionally, Amendment 17A would require the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks north of 28° N. lat. and require a monitoring program for South Atlantic red snapper. The actions contained in Amendment 17A are intended to end overfishing of South Atlantic red snapper and rebuild the fishery.
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on September 27, 2010.
You may submit comments, identified by “0648-AY10”, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
Copies of Amendment 17A may be obtained from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: 843-571-4366 or 866-SAFMC-10 (toll free); fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail:
Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail:
The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Amendment 17A would specify a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (F
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that a rebuilding plan be specified for any federally-managed species determined to be overfished. Rebuilding plans consist of a rebuilding schedule and a rebuilding strategy. Amendment 17A would define a rebuilding schedule of 35 years for red snapper. The rebuilding time period would end in 2044.
The Council chose a rebuilding strategy equal to 98 percent of F
In order to reach the rebuilding goal within the specified timeframe, the Council chose to prohibit all harvest and possession of red snapper in or from the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and in or from state waters for vessels holding Federal snapper-grouper permits. To address the issue of red snapper bycatch in the snapper-grouper fishery, NMFS proposes to implement a snapper-grouper closed area that extends from southern Georgia to northern Florida between the depths of 98 ft (30 m) to 240 ft (73 m). Within the closed area all harvest and possession of snapper-grouper would be prohibited except when fishing with black sea bass pots or spearfishing gear for species other than red snapper. Transit through the proposed closed area for vessels with species other than red snapper onboard would be permitted with gear appropriately stowed.
To further reduce bycatch mortality of red snapper while targeting other snapper-grouper species, Amendment 17A would require the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing with hook-and-line gear north of 28° N. lat. Amendment 17A also requires a red snapper monitoring program that would utilize, but not be limited to, fishery-independent data collection methods. The program would be designed to monitor rebuilding progress of the stock, and data would be employed in red snapper assessments. Stock assessments would be used to determine if the stock is rebuilding, or if additional regulatory modifications are needed to end overfishing.
The Council has submitted Amendment 17A for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 17A will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability. After consideration of these factors, and consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, NMFS will publish a notice of agency action in the
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 17A has been received from the Council. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 17A to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If an affirmative determination is made, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
Comments received by September 27, 2010, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Notice: Withdrawal.
The Department of Agriculture published a document in the
Risk Management Agency, USDA.
Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces a public comment period on the information collection requests (ICRs) associated with the Standard Reinsurance Agreement and Appendices I, II and IV administered by Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). Appendix III is excluded because it contains the Data Acceptance System requirements.
Written comments on this notice will be accepted until close of business, September 27, 2010.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to David L. Miller, Director, Reinsurance Services Division, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0804, Washington, DC 20250. Written comments may also be submitted electronically to:
David L. Miller, Director, Risk Management Agency, at the address listed above, telephone (202) 720-9830.
FCIC executes the same form of reinsurance agreement, called the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), with sixteen participating insurers approved for the 2011 reinsurance year. Appendix I of the SRA, Regulatory Duties and Responsibilities, sets forth the company's responsibilities as required by statute. Appendix II of the SRA, the Plan of Operations (Plan), sets forth the information the insurer is required to file with RMA for each reinsurance year they wish to participate. The Plan's information enables RMA to evaluate the insurer's financial and operational capability to deliver the crop insurance program in accordance with the Act. Estimated premiums by fund by state, and retained percentages along with current policyholders surplus are used in calculations to determine whether to approve the insurer's requested maximum reinsurable premium volume for the reinsurance year per 7 CFR part 400 subpart L. This information has a direct effect upon the insurer's amount of retained premium and associated liability and is required to calculate the insurer's underwriting gain or loss.
Appendix IV of the SRA, Quality Control and Program Integrity, establishes the minimum annual agent and loss adjuster training requirements, and quality control review procedures and performance standards required of the insurance companies. FCIC requires each insurer to submit, for each reinsurance year, a Quality Control Report to FCIC containing details of the results of their completed reviews. The insurance companies must also provide an annual Training and Performance Evaluation Report which details the evaluation of each agent and loss adjuster and reports of any remedial actions taken by the Company to correct any error or omission or ensure compliance with the SRA.
Since the currently approved information collection package does not account for new information collections implemented in the 2011 reinsurance year, we are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve this revised information collection activity for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning this information collection activity as associated with the SRA in effect for the 2011 and subsequent reinsurance years. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
The SRA includes Conflict of Interest data collection, which in addition to the insurance companies reinsured by FCIC, encompasses the insurance companies' employees and their contracted agents and loss adjusters. The SRA also includes a Controlled Business data collection from all employed or
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice to extend application deadlines and award dates.
The Agency published a document in the
Requests for additional information should be directed to Mark Brodziski, (202) 720-1394.
On July 19, 2010, the Agency published a correction notice (75 FR 41695) to the Interim Rule for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (7 CFR part 4280, subpart D). One of the items corrected was the definition of a “nonprofit entity.” This correction removed the word “private” from the definition of “nonprofit entity”. The original definition of “nonprofit entity” published in the Interim Rule, referred to “a private entity chartered as a nonprofit entity under State law.” The corrected definition is “an entity chartered as a nonprofit entity under State law.” It was not the intention of the Agency to restrict eligible nonprofit entities to only private entities. In making this correction to the Interim Rule, there may be additional entities eligible to participate in RMAP in Fiscal Year 2010. Because the correction occurred after the Fiscal Year 2010 application deadline of July 16, 2010, as found in the June 3, 2010, notice, the Agency is extending the application deadline for Fiscal Year 2010 applications from July 16, 2010 to August 16, 2010.
In addition, because the Fiscal Year 2010 application deadline is being extended, it is necessary to provide additional time for the Agency to review applications received between July 16, 2010 and August 16, 2010. Therefore, the Agency is extending the anticipated award date for Fiscal Year 2010 applications from August 31, 2010 to September 15, 2010.
All other aspects of the June 3, 2010 notice for RMAP remain unchanged and in effect for applications submitted by the new application deadline for Fiscal Year 2010.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Yavapai County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Prescott, Arizona. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to orientate new committee members to the Secural Rural Schools Act, roles of members, guidelines for Title II, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting will be held August 19, 2010; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Prescott Fire Center, 2400 Melville Dr, Prescott, AZ 86301.
Debbie Maneely, RAC Coordinator, Prescott National Forest, 344 S. Cortez, Prescott, AZ 86301; (928) 443-8130 or
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Welcome and introductions; (2) overview of Secure Rural Schools Act, Title II funding and timeline; (3) develop RAC charter and operating guidelines; (4) discussion of Committee members and Designated Federal
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).
Census is widely regarded as a superior collector of data based on its centuries of experience and its scientific methods. The collection of NTIA's requested broadband usage data, moreover, will occur in conjunction with Census' scheduled October 2010 CPS, thereby significantly reducing the potential burdens on the Bureau and the households surveyed. Questions on broadband and Internet usage were included in eight previous Census household surveys.
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 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to William Tucker, OMB Desk Officer, e-mail address,
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).
Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).
The original purposes of the AFA were to tighten United States ownership standards that had been exploited under the Anti-reflagging Act, to provide Alaska's BSAI pollock fleet the opportunity to conduct their fishery in a more rational manner, and to protect non-AFA participants in other fisheries. In addition, a voluntary civil agreement among pollock cooperatives, Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups, and western Alaska subsistence salmon user groups is intended to coordinate the pollock fishery in a manner that reduces incidental catch rates of salmon. Reduced bycatch, higher utilization rates, increased economic returns, and improved safety are among the direct benefits of the AFA. The flexibility provided by cooperatives and by individual vessel allocations of pollock and other species has allowed the BSAI pollock fleet to spread their fishing effort in time and space. The cooperative management structure has shifted more of the monitoring and enforcement burden to the cooperatives and their members, allowing NMFS to manage the fishery more precisely. The AFA cooperative annual reports are required to provide information about how the cooperative allocated pollock, other groundfish species, and prohibited species among the vessels in the cooperative; the catch of these species by area for each vessel in the cooperative; information about how the cooperative monitored fishing by its members; and a description of any actions taken by the cooperative to penalize vessels that exceeded the catch and bycatch allocations made to the vessel by the cooperative.
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 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting and request for comments.
The United States Department of Commerce (DOC) is seeking vendors that currently conduct business with, or have previously conducted business with or hope to conduct business with DOC. Interested parties are asked to offer comments on the DOC acquisition function for the purpose of strengthening the process. Parties may offer oral comments at a public meeting to be held on August 10, 2010. Parties are also encouraged to provide written comments.
A public meeting will be conducted on August 10, 2010, at 1 p.m. Eastern time and will end no later than 4 p.m. Eastern time.
The public is asked to pre-register by 5 p.m. Eastern time on August 6, 2010, due to security precautions and seating limitations. Registration is on a first-come first-served basis and space is limited. To preregister, please send an e-mail to
The meeting will be held in the auditorium of the Department of Commerce. The auditorium is located off the main lobby of the Department of Commerce building at 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230.
The public meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to
In lieu of, or in addition to, participating in the public meeting, interested parties may submit written comments to
For clarification of the subject matter related to the memorandum: E-mail
The purpose of the meeting is to encourage public comment on ways DOC can improve its acquisition processes and relationship with the business community. A list of topics are provided at the end of this notice. Parties wishing to make oral or written comments are especially encouraged to provide comment on these issues for DOC consideration.
DOC welcomes public comments on DOC's acquisition function best practices, opportunities for improvement, and challenges related to business contracting and seeks public input on the issues described below:
An agenda will be posted at Web site
Based on a request from an interested party, the rebuttal period on the preliminary recommendation for the application for subzone status at the Dow Corning Corporation (Dow Corning) facilities in Carrollton, Elizabethtown and Shepherdsville, Kentucky (75 FR 31763, 6/3/2010) is being extended to August 26, 2010 to allow additional time in which to provide rebuttal comments. The original submission shall be sent to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. An electronic copy shall be submitted to
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for one new scientific research permits.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received one 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. The application may be viewed online at:
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 application 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
Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2005, Fax: 503-230-5441, e-mail:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.
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
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to modify Permit 1568-2M, which they currently hold and which would be in effect until December 31, 2011. The current permit authorizes the NWFSC to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and steelhead while conducting research designed to provide information on their basic life histories, ecology, and genetic compositions in the Snohomish River estuary and three of its major distributary sloughs (Ebey, Union and Steamboat) in northwest Washington State. The research is designed to (1) characterize the ecology of existing Chinook salmon populations and life history types in the Snohomish River estuary, and (2) evaluate how effectively habitat protection and restoration actions in the estuary help Chinook salmon populations in the Snohomish River basin. The information gathered by this research would benefit the fish by helping recovery planning in the Snohomish River estuary and other estuaries of the Puget Sound. The modification would allow the NWFSC to increase the number of fish taken due to an increase in sampling effort. The increase in effort consists of adding sites in the estuary and increasing the number of sampling days. The NWFSC is seeking to capture fish (using fyke nets and beach seines); anesthetize them; measure them, weigh them, check them for external marks and coded wire tags; and release them. A portion of the captured fish would be killed for full necropsy. A small portion of the captured fish may be unintentionally killed; however accidental mortalities would be used in place of sacrificed fish whenever possible.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet 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
Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Saintilien Enterprise Inc., doing business as Saintilien Global Services (“SGS”) (Application # 10-00003).
On July 21, 2010, the Department of Commerce issued an
This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted.
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2010).
The Office of Competition and Economic Analysis (“OCEA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
SGS is certified to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below in the following Export Trade and Export Markets.
All Products.
All Services.
Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, that relate to Product and Services.
Export Trade Facilitation Services include 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; 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, SGS, subject to the terms and conditions listed below, may:
a. Provide and/or arrange for the provisions 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.
2. SGS and individual Suppliers may regularly exchange information on a one-on-one basis regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules in order that the availability of Products for export can be determined and effectively coordinated by SGS with its distributers in Export Markets.
“
Notice of Application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review From Canned Wild Salmon Export Council, LLC (“CWSEC”).
The Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification is sought and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued.
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll free number) or E-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) 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 a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a
CWSEC seeks a Certificate of Review to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below for the following Export Trade and Export Markets:
Shelf stable non-refrigerated salmon product packed in a can or retort pouch, also known as canned salmon. Shelf stable means that the product can be safely stored in a sealed container at room or ambient temperature for a usefully long shelf life. A retort pouch is a flexible package in which prepared food is hermetically sealed for long-term unrefrigerated storage.
The export markets include all parts of the world except for Canada and 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. Canned Wild Salmon Export Council, LLC is seeking certification for engaging in the following conduct:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
2. Canned Wild Salmon Export Council, LLC is seeking certification for sharing among its Members the following information:
a. Information about sale and marketing efforts for the Export Markets, activities and opportunities for sales of canned salmon in the Export Markets, selling strategies for the Export Markets, sales for the Export Markets, contract and spot pricing in the Export Markets, projected demands in the Exports Markets for canned salmon, terms of sale in the Export Markets, prices and availability of canned salmon in the Export Markets and specifications for canned salmon by customers in the Export Markets;
b. Information about the price, quantity, quality, source, and delivery dates of canned salmon available for the Members to export;
c. Information about the terms and conditions of contracts for sale in the Export Markets to be considered and/or bid on;
d. Information about joint bidding or selling arrangements for the Export Markets and allocations of sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members;
e. Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation transportation, insurance, inland freights to port, port storage, commissions, documentation, financing, customs, duties, and taxes;
f. Information about U.S. and foreign legislation and regulations, including without limitation federal marketing assistance programs affecting sales of canned salmon for the Export Markets;
g. Information about export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks, prior export sales by Members; and
h. Information about export customer credit terms and credit history.
3. Canned Wild Salmon Export Council, LLC, and any or all of its Members, is seeking authority to meet and engage in the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 2, above.
Notice of Application (94-4A007) To Amend the Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to Florida Citrus Exports, L.C. (“FCE”), Application No. 94-00007.
The Office of Competition and Economic Analysis (“OCEA”) of the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (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. 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 nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-X, Washington, DC 20230, or transmitted by E-mail to
The original Certificate for Florida Citrus Exports, L.C. was issued on February 23, 1995 (60 FR 12735, March 8, 1995), and last amended on May 8, 2000 (65 FR 30564, May 12, 2000). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows.
1. Add the following new Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Riverfront Packing Co. LLC, Vero Beach, FL; and Indian River Exchange Packers, Inc., Vero Beach Florida.
2. Delete the following Members from FCE's Certificate: Dole Citrus, Vero Beach, FL; Harbor Island Citrus, Inc., Vero Beach, FL; and Minton Sun, Inc., Ft. Pierce, FL.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Maryanne Burke 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) 482-5604 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On November 30, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request from domestic interested parties Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation and TMK-IPSCO to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. We also received review requests on November 30, 2009, from companies Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V.'s (TUNA), Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller) and Mueller's affiliated importer Southland Pipe Nipples Co., Inc. On December 23, 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review, covering the period of November 1, 2008 to October 31, 2009.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. 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 limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested.
The Department finds it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time frame because we require additional time with respect to cost of production data used in the margin calculation programs. In particular, there are complex issues concerning Mueller's cost of production which involve multiple unaffiliated companies. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review until no later than December 7, 2010.
This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
July 29, 2010
On March 3, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering sales of subject merchandise made by Zhejiang Tianyi Scientific & Educational Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Zhejiang Tianyi”).
Rebecca Pandolph 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) 482-4474 and (202) 482-5193, respectively.
We published the
On July 6, 2010, the Department notified interested parties that it would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage rate in this NSR, as a result of the recent decision in
The period of review (“POR”) is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009.
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” The order covers all WBF meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Edward C. Yang, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the January 2009 through June 2009 New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” dated July 23, 2010 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which the Department responded 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 in room 1117 in the main Commerce Department building, and is also 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 made the following change to our
No party has contested the
Since the
The Department found in the
The Department has determined that the following final dumping margin exists for the period January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009:
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). For importers/customers of the respondent where the respondent did not report entered values, we have calculated importer/customer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total quantity of subject merchandise sold in those transactions. For importers/customers of the respondent where the respondent reported entered values, we have calculated an
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of NSR for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) for the exporter/producer listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate shown for these companies; 2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate or combination rate published for the most recent period; 3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent; and 4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B), 751(a)(2)(C), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
This administrative review is now completed in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final net subsidy rate for Borusan and Toscelik is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section.
July 29, 2010.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14
On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the
The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the preliminary results. Therefore, consistent with the
As there have been no changes to or comments on the preliminary results, we are not attaching a decision memorandum to this
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by Borusan and Toscelik entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, without regard to countervailing duties because a
For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.
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(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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (“FMTCs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received on June 30, 2010, meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) of this new shipper review is June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, Erin Kearney, or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department
The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on FMTCs from the PRC was published in the
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i)(d), 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)2(iii), in its request for a new shipper review, Xinjiamei, as an exporter and producer, certified that: (1) It did not export FMTCs to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”); (2) since the initiation of the investigation, Xinjiamei has never been affiliated with any company that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”); and (3) its export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Xinjiamei submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped FMTCs for export to the United States and the date on which the FMTCs were first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we find that the request submitted by Xinjiamei meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for shipments of FMTCs from the PRC produced and exported by Xinjiamei.
It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies (“NMEs), to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Xinjiamei in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Xinjiamei certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for this new shipper review request, we will apply the bonding privilege to Xinjiamei only for subject merchandise which Xinjiamei both produced and exported.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Advisory Board. Board members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described in the Agenda below.
The announced meeting is scheduled for: Monday, August 30, 2010.
Conference Call. Public access is available at SSMC Bldg 3, ROOM # 5836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD.
Mr. Jim Murray, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11837, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301)734-1070.
The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
I. Discussion of Advisory Board report to Congress on the state of Sea Grant.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings.
The meetings will be held August 16-20, 2010.
The meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza, 200 E. Gregory St., Pensacola, FL 32502.
Dr. Stephen Bortone, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
Immediately Following Committee Recess - There will be an informal open public question and answer session on Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Issues.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date/time established in this notice.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina O'Hern at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the agenda below.
The meeting is scheduled for August 12, 2009, from 2 - 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Conference call. Public access is available at SSMC3, Room 13817, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Heidi Lovett, (301) 713-9070 x-118; e-mail:
The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on February 17, 1971, to advise the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. This committee advises and reviews the adequacy of living marine resource policies and programs to meet the needs of commercial and recreational fisheries, and environmental, State, consumer, academic, tribal, governmental and other national interests. The complete charter and summaries of prior meetings are located online at
This meeting is convening to discuss and consider recommendations of the MAFAC Strategic Planning, Budget and Program Management Subcommittee on the NOAA Next Generation Strategic Plan. This agenda is subject to change.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of Public Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the agenda below.
The meeting is scheduled for: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 from 3 p.m.-5 p.m. Eastern Time.
Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3, Room 11836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD.
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
1. Discussion and consideration of comments from the Working Groups of the NOAA Science Advisory Board on the NOAA Next Generation Strategic Plan and decision on final comments to be transmitted to NOAA.
2. Discussion and consideration of the transmittal letter to NOAA highlighting recommendations from the report from the April 2010 meeting of the Climate Working Group.
3. Discussion and consideration of next actions on NOAA Science Workshop White Paper.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO), a part of Columbia University, to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a marine geophysical survey at the Shatsky Rise in the northwest Pacific Ocean, July through September, 2010.
Effective July 19, 2010, through September 28, 2010.
A copy of the IHA and application are available by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National
Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext. 113 or Benjamin Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext. 159.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to authorize, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. The authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and monitoring and reporting of such takings. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
NMFS received an application on February 2, 2010 from L-DEO for the taking by harassment, of marine mammals, incidental to conducting a marine geophysical survey in the northwest Pacific Ocean. L-DEO, with research funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), plans to conduct a marine seismic survey in the northwest Pacific Ocean, from July through September, 2010.
L-DEO plans to use one source vessel, the R/V
Acoustic stimuli (
L-DEO's seismic survey on the Shatsky Rise is scheduled to commence on July 24, 2010, and continue for approximately 17 days ending on September 7, 2010. L-DEO will operate the
The
Geophysical survey activities will involve conventional seismic methodologies to decipher the crustal structure of the Shatsky Rise. To obtain high-resolution, 3-D structures of the area's magmatic systems and thermal structures, the
The Shatsky Rise study (
The scientific team consists of Drs. Jun Korenaga (Yale University, New Haven, CT), and William Sager (Texas A&M University, College Station, TX).
NMFS outlined the purpose of the program in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (75 FR 28568, May 21,
A notice of receipt of the L-DEO application and proposed IHA was published in the
At present, NMFS views the combination of visual and passive acoustic monitoring as the most effective mitigation techniques available for detecting marine mammals within or entering the exclusion zone. L-DEO and the federal funding agency (NSF) are receptive to incorporating proven technologies and techniques to enhance the current monitoring and mitigation program. Until proven technological advances are made, nighttime mitigation measures during operations include combinations of the use of protected species visual observers (PSVOs), PAM, night vision devices, and continuous shooting of a mitigation gun. Should the airgun array be powered-down, it is believed that the operation of a single airgun continues to serve as a sound source deterrent to marine mammals. In the event of a complete airgun array shut down, for mitigation or repairs, then science is suspended until one half hour after civil dawn (when PSO's are able to clear the safety zone). Science does not begin until the entire safety radius is visible for at least 30 minutes.
In cooperation with NMFS, L-DEO will be conducting efficacy experiments of night vision devices (NVD) during a future
The complement of five PSVOs will rotate shifts, with generally three PSVOs typically on watch at a time, with duty shifts lasting typically one to four hours. Two PSVOs will also be on visual watch during all nighttime start-ups of the seismic airguns. A third PSVO will monitor the PAM equipment 24 hours a day to detect vocalizing marine mammals present in the action area. In summary, a typical daytime cruise would have scheduled two PSVOs on duty from the observation tower, a third PSVO on PAM, and a fourth and fifth PSVO off duty in preparation for shifts.
L-DEO will also instruct the
Last, PSVOs will conduct observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior both with versus without airgun operations and between acquisition periods.
During the cruise, there will be significant amounts of transit time pre-and post-survey during which PSVOs
The towed hydrophones will ideally be monitored 24 hours per day while at the seismic survey area during airgun operations, and during most periods when the
(1) Because the
(2) In many cases PSVOs are making observations during times when the seismic airguns are not being operated and will actually be observing prior to the 30-minute observation period anyway;
(3) The majority of the species that may be exposed do not stay underwater more than 30 minutes; and
(4) All else being equal and if deep-diving individuals happened to be in the area in the short time immediately prior to the pre-start-up monitoring, if an animal's maximum underwater dive time is 45 minutes, then there is only a one in three chance that the last random surfacing would occur prior to the beginning of the required 30-minute monitoring period and that the animal would not be seen during that 30-minue period.
Also, seismic vessels are moving continuously (because of the long, towed array) and NMFS believes that unless the animal submerges and follows at the speed of the vessel (highly unlikely, especially when considering that a significant part of their movements is vertical [deep-diving]), the vessel will be far beyond the length of the exclusion zone (EZ) radii within 30 minutes, and therefore it will be safe to start the airguns again.
The effectiveness of monitoring is science-based and the requirement that mitigation measures be “practicable.” NMFS believes that the framework for visual monitoring will: (1) Be effective at spotting almost all species for which take is requested; and (2) that imposing additional requirements, such as those suggested by the Commission, would not meaningfully increase the effectiveness of observing marine mammals approaching or entering the EZs.
(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up or power-down), Beaufort wind force sea state, visibility, and sun glare.
One of the primary purposes of monitoring is to result in “increased knowledge of the species” and the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures; the effectiveness of marine mammal's reaction to ramp-up would be useful information in this regard. NMFS has asked NSF and L-DEO to gather all data that could potentially provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-ups as a mitigation measure. However, considering the low numbers of marine mammal sightings and low numbers of ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the information will result in any statistically robust conclusions for this particular seismic survey. Over the long term, these requirements may provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, provided animals are detected during ramp-up.
Post-cruise monitoring reports required by the IHA contain vast amounts of sighting data. LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates (LGL), a contractor for L-DEO, has processed sighting and density and data, and their publications can be viewed online at:
Please note that Table 3 combines three cryptic species (Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Stejneger's beaked whale, and Hubb's beaked whale into one category, named
In closing, NMFS is open to meeting with the Commission to further discuss the broad issues raised in their comments, which relate to more than just the IHA contemplated here. NMFS' staff has contacted Commission staff in response to this request and will follow up to schedule a meeting this year.
Thirty-four marine mammal species may occur in the Shatsky Rise survey area, including 26 odontocetes (toothed cetaceans), 7 mysticetes (baleen whales) and one pinniped. Six of these species are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The western North Pacific gray whale (
NMFS has presented a more detailed discussion of the status of these stocks and their occurrence in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, as well as other marine mammal species that occur around Shatsky Rise, in the notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 28568, May 21, 2010).
Level B harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds has the potential to occur during the seismic survey due to acoustic stimuli caused by the firing of a single airgun or the 36-airgun array which introduces sound into the marine environment. The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson
The notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 28568, May 21, 2010) included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in L-DEO's application and NMFS' EA. The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the potential effects of the multibeam echosounder (MBES) and the sub-bottom profiler (SBP). Because of the shape of the beams of these sources and their power, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to either the MBES or the SBP at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans to a few signals from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar system is not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals.
A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates was included in the proposed IHA (75 FR 28568, May 21, 2010). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA notice and the nature of the activities (limited duration), the authorized operations are not expected to result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including the food sources they use. The main impact associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
L-DEO has based the mitigation measures described herein, to be implemented for the seismic survey, on the following:
(1) Protocols used during previous L-DEO seismic research cruises as approved by NMFS;
(2) previous IHA applications and IHAs approved and authorized by NMFS; and
(3) recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, L-DEO and/or its designees will implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Exclusion zones;
(2) power-down procedures;
(3) shutdown procedures, including procedures for species of concern such as emergency shut-down procedures for North Pacific right whales; and
(4) ramp-up procedures.
If the protected species visual observer (PSVO) detects marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the
If the PSVO detects a marine mammal (other than a north Pacific right whale—
Following a power down, L-DEO will not resume airgun activity until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone for the full array. L-DEO will consider the animal to have cleared the EZ if:
• A PSVO has visually observed the animal leave the EZ, or
• a PSVO has not sighted the animal within the EZ for 15 minutes. for small odontocetes (or pinnipeds), or 30 min. for mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.
During airgun operations following a power down (or shut down) whose duration has exceeded the time limits specified previously, L-DEO will ramp-up the airgun array gradually (
(1) If an animal enters the EZ of the single airgun after L-DEO has initiated a power down, or
(2) If an animal is initially seen within the EZ of the single airgun when more than one airgun (typically the full airgun array) is operating. L-DEO will not resume airgun activity until the marine mammal has cleared the EZ, or until the PSVO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for judging that the animal has cleared the EZ will be as described in the preceding section.
Considering the conservation status for North Pacific right whales, L-DEO will shut down the airgun(s) immediately in the unlikely event that this species is observed, regardless of the distance from the
Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40-in
If the complete EZ has not been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, L-DEO will not commence the ramp-up unless at least one airgun (40-in
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has determined that the required mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.
L-DEO proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the anticipated monitoring requirements of the IHA. L-DEO's Monitoring Plan is described below this section and was planned as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. L-DEO is prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is practical.
PSVOs will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during any start-ups at night. PSVOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations after an extended shut down. When feasible, PSVOs will also observe during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with airgun operations versus without airgun operations. Based on PSVO observations, L-DEO will power down or shut down the airguns when marine mammals are observed within a designated EZ or are about to enter a designated EZ. The EZ is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse effects on animal hearing or other physical effects.
During seismic operations at the Shatsky Rise, five PSVOs will be based aboard the
The
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) will complement the visual monitoring program, when practicable. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility (
The PAM system consists of hardware (
The towed hydrophones will ideally be monitored 24 hr/d while at the seismic survey area during airgun operations, and during most periods when the Langseth is underway while the airguns are not operating. One PSVO will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one time, by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real-time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. PSVOs monitoring the acoustical data will be on shift for one
When a vocalization is detected while visual observations are in progress, the acoustic PSO will contact the visual PSVO immediately, to alert him/her to the presence of cetaceans (if not already visually detected), and initiate a power down or shut down, if required. The information regarding the call will be entered into a database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (
PSVOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power down or shut down of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ.
When a sighting is made, the PSVO/L-DEO will record the following information about the sighting:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare.
The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
All observations and power downs or shut downs will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving.
Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or shut down).
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals and turtles in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals and turtles relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity.
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals and turtles seen at times with and without seismic activity.
L-DEO will submit a report to NMFS and NSF within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals and turtles near the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that could result in “takes” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.
L-DEO will report all injured or dead marine mammals (regardless of cause) to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report should include the species or description of the animal, the condition of the animal, location, time first found, observed behaviors (if alive) and photo or video, if available.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
Only take by Level B harassment is anticipated and authorized as a result of the marine geophysical survey at the Shatsky Rise. Acoustic stimuli (
NMFS included an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities of the marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (75 FR 28568, May 21, 2010). A summary is included here.
L-DEO's estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be disturbed appreciably by operations with the 36-airgun array to be used during approximately 3,160 km of seismic surveys at the Shatsky Rise.
Density data on 18 marine mammal species in the Shatsky Rise area are available from two sources using conventional line transect methods: Japanese sighting surveys conducted since the early 1980s, and fisheries observers in the high-seas driftnet fisheries during 1987-1990 (
Densities for 14 species are available from Japanese sighting surveys in the Shatsky Rise survey area. Miyashita (1993a) provided estimates for six dolphin species in this area that have been taken in the Japanese drive fisheries. The densities used here are Miyashita's (1993a) estimates for the `Eastern offshore' survey area (30-42° N, 145°-180° E). Kato and Miyashita (1998) provided estimates for sperm whale densities from Japanese sightings data during 1982 to 1996 in the western North Pacific (20-50° N, 130°-180° E), and Hakamada
For four species (northern fur seal, Dall's porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin (
The densities mentioned above had been corrected by the original authors for detectability bias and, with the exception of Kitakado
There is some uncertainty about the accuracy of the density data from the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit (JARPN/JARPN II). For example, densities in Miyashita (1993a) and Buckland
The estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed are based on the 160-dB re 1 μPa · m
L-DEO's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that the surveys will be completed. As is typical during offshore ship surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions are likely to cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-kilometers of seismic operations that can be undertaken. Furthermore, any marine mammal sightings within or near the designated exclusion zones will result in the power down or shut down of seismic operations as a mitigation measure. Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to sound levels of 160 re 1 μPa · m
Table 2 in this notice shows the best and maximum estimated number of exposures and the number of different individuals potentially exposed during the seismic survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. The take authorization is based on the maximum estimates in Table 2 rather than the best estimates of the numbers of individuals exposed, because of uncertainties associated with applying density data from one area to another.
The number of different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa · m
(1) The expected species density, either “mean” (
(2) the anticipated minimum area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations including overlap (exposures), or
(3) the anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations excluding overlap (individuals).
The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a MapInfo Geographic Information System (GIS), using the GIS to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer (
Applying the approach described above, approximately 20,831 square kilometers (km
The `maximum estimate' of the number of individual cetaceans that could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 μPa during the survey is 20,003. Most (96%) of the cetaceans potentially exposed are delphinids; short-beaked common, striped, pantropical spotted, and Pacific white-sided dolphins are estimated to be the most common species in the area,
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers:
(1) The number of anticipated mortalities;
(2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries;
(3) the number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and
(4) the context in which the takes occur.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 34 species of marine mammals could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. For each species, these numbers are small (each, less than two percent) relative to the population size.
No takes by (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality are anticipated to occur as a result of the L-DEO's marine geophysical survey, and none are authorized. Only short-term behavioral disturbance is anticipated to occur due to the brief and sporadic duration of the survey activities. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, the activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS has determined, provided that the aforementioned mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented, that the impact of conducting a marine geophysical survey at the Shatsky Rise in the northwest Pacific Ocean, July through September 2010, may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals.
While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the operation of the airgun(s), may be made by these species to avoid the resultant acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within these areas and the short and sporadic duration of the research activities, have led NMFS to determine that this action will have a negligible impact on the species in the specified geographic region.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that L-DEO's planned research activities, will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
Of the 34 species of marine mammals that may occur in the survey area, six are listed as endangered under the ESA, including the north Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales. Under Section 7 of the ESA, NSF had initiated formal consultation with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, on this seismic survey. NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, also initiated formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, to obtain a Biological Opinion (BiOp) evaluating the effects of issuing the IHA on threatened and endangered marine mammals and, if appropriate, authorizing incidental take. On July 16, 2010, NMFS concluded formal Section 7 consultation with itself and issued a BiOp which concluded that the proposed action and issuance of the IHA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the north Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales and leatherback (
To meet NMFS' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The NMFS has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and, therefore, it is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to L-DEO for this activity. The EA and the NMFS FONSI for this activity are available upon request (
NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the specific seismic survey activities described in this notice and the IHA request in the specific geographic region within the Shatsky Rise area in the northwest Pacific Ocean may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B harassment) of small numbers of marine mammals. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the affected species or stock of marine mammals for subsistence uses is not implicated for this action.
For reasons stated previously, the specified activities associated with the survey are not likely to cause TTS, PTS or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death to affected marine mammals because:
(1) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2) The fact that cetaceans would have to be closer than 940 m (0.61 mi) in deep water when the full array is in use at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound believed to have even a minimal chance of causing PTS;
(3) The fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 3,850 m (2.4 mi) in deep water when the full array is in use at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (160 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance at causing TTS; and
(4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high at that short distance from the vessel;
(5) The use of PAM, which is effective out to tens of kilometers, will assist in the detection of vocalizing marine mammals at greater distances from the vessel;
(6) The incorporation of other required mitigation measures (
(7) The relatively limited duration and geographically widespread distances of the seismic survey in the Shatsky Rise study area (approximately 17 days).
As a result, no take by injury, serious injury, or death is anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the monitoring and mitigation measures.
While the number of marine mammals potentially incidentally harassed will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential Level B incidental harassment takings (
As a result of these determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey at the Shatsky Rise area in the northwest Pacific Ocean, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The duration of the IHA would not exceed one year from the date of its issuance.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Notice of Meeting of Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues.
The Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues will hold a public meeting on August 11, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., at the CFTC's Washington, DC headquarters. At the meeting, the committee will continue its examination of the market events of May 6, 2010.
The meeting will be held on August 11, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by August 10, 2010.
The meeting will take place in the first floor hearing room at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
Written statements may be may be submitted to either the CFTC or the SEC; all submissions will be reviewed jointly by the two agencies. Please use the title “Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee” in any written statement you may submit. Statements may be submitted to any of the addresses listed below. Please submit your statement to only one address.
Martin White, Committee Management Officer, at (202) 418-5129, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581; Ronesha Butler, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5629, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St., NE., Washington, DC 20549; or Elizabeth M. Murphy, Committee Management Officer, at (202) 551-5400, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St., NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The agenda for the meeting will include (1) committee organizational matters and (2) hearing two industry panels presenting views and information regarding the market events of May 6, 2010.
The meeting will be webcast on the CFTC's Web site,
5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(a)(2).
By the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006), (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed information collection described below.
Comments in consideration of the collection of information are due 60 days after publication of this Notice in the
Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC10-582-000. Documents must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with Commission submission guidelines at
Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket may do so through eSubscription at
Ellen Brown may be reached by: e-mail at
The information required by FERC-582, (“Electric Fees; Annual Charges; Waivers; and Exemptions;” OMB Control No. 1902-0132) covers the filing
FERC-582 is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) which authorizes the Commission to establish fees for its services.
In calculating electric fees and annual charges, the Commission first determines the total costs of its electric regulatory program and then subtracts all electric regulatory program filing fee collections to determine the total collectible electric regulatory program costs. It then uses the data submitted under FERC-582
Public utilities and power marketers subject to these annual charges must submit FERC-582 data to the Commission by April 30 of each year (18 CFR 382.201). The Commission issues bills for annual charges, and public utilities and power marketers then must pay the charges within 45 days of the Commission's issuance of the bill.
Requests for waivers and exemptions of fees and charges (required by 18 CFR Parts 381 and 382) are filed, based on need. The Commission's staff uses the filer's financial information to evaluate the request for a waiver or exemption of the obligation to pay a fee or an annual charge.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $15,312 (231 hours/2080 hours
The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate 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.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
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.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RED-Scotia, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 11, 2010.
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-referenced proceeding 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 11, 2010.
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-referenced proceeding 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Spark Energy, L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 11, 2010.
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-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AP Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 11, 2010.
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-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
As announced in the May 18, 2010
The workshops are open to the public and all interested parties are invited to attend and participate. These meetings will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
To ensure adequate materials are available, please register to attend the workshops by e-mailing Stephanie Obadia at
For additional information, please contact David Turner at 202-502-6091 or
By order dated July 9, 2010
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Extension of Comment Period.
The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period for one chapter of the draft assessment document titled,
Comments should be submitted on or before August 30, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions related to this draft document, please contact Ms. Beth Hassett-Sipple, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail:
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for these listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria.
As part of EPA's review of the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) PM NAAQS, the Agency recently released the
The UFVA was scheduled to be finalized on or about June 30, 2010 (75 FR 39252, July 8, 2010). However, in finalizing this document, EPA staff identified a data processing error which caused organic carbonaceous material to be over estimated on some days. The corrections were quite small and did not affect the conclusions. Corrections have been made to the final UFVA. Since the UFVA was finalized later than originally anticipated and chapter 4 of the second draft Policy Assessment (Review of the Secondary Standards for Visibility-Related Effects) builds on the information presented in the UFVA, EPA is extending the comment period by two weeks for this chapter to provide stakeholders and the public with adequate time to conduct appropriate analysis and prepare meaningful comments. The second draft Policy Assessment may be accessed online through EPA's TTN website at:
The draft document described above does not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 - 3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before August 30, 2010. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and to the Federal Communications Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page http://reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review”, (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR
Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.
Upon OMB approval of the revisions to this information collection, OMB Control No. 3060-1007 also titled, “Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules” will be discontinued.
The information collection requirements accounted for in this collection are necessary to determine the technical and legal qualifications of applicants or licensees to operate a station, transfer or assign a license, and to determine whether the authorization is in the public interest, convenience and necessity. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to permit respondents to provide telecommunication services in the U.S. Therefore, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the obligations imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, July 22, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-09: Club for Growth, by its counsel, Carol A. Laham, Esq., and D. Mark Renaud, Esq., of Wiley Rein LLP.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-11: Commonsense Ten, by its counsel, Marc E. Elias, Esq., and Ezra Reese, Esq., of Perkins Cole LLP.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Thursday, July 29, 2010, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-13: Libertarian Party of Florida, by its treasurer, Mr. James Tall.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Darlene Harris, Deputy Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer,
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 23, 2010.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 26, 2010.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
3:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 3, 2010.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
Closed.
1. Implications of Dodd-Frank Reform Act for Board Organization and Staffing.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 27, 2010.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice.
The Board invites the public to nominate qualified individuals for appointment to its Consumer Advisory Council, whose membership represents the interests of consumers, communities, and the financial services industry. The Board plans to appoint up to ten members for terms that will begin in January 2011. Appointments are typically for three years. However, the duration of members' terms may be subject to change pursuant to the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Nominations must be received by September 10, 2010. Nominations not received by September 10 may not be considered.
Nominations must include a résumé for each nominee. Electronic nominations are preferred. The appropriate form can be accessed at:
If electronic submission is not feasible, the nominations may be mailed (not faxed) to Joseph Firschein, Assistant Director and Community Affairs Officer, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
Jennifer Kerslake, Secretary of the Council, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, (202) 452-6470, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Consumer Advisory Council was established in 1976 at the direction of the Congress to advise the Federal Reserve Board on the exercise of its duties under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and on other consumer-related matters. The Council by law represents the interests both of consumers and of the financial services industry (15 U.S.C. 1691(b)). Under the Rules of Organization and Procedure of the Consumer Advisory Council (12 CFR 267.3), members serve three-year terms that are staggered to provide the Council with continuity. The duration of members' terms may be subject to change pursuant to the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
The Board plans to appoint up to ten members for terms that will begin January 1, 2011, to replace members whose terms expire in December 2010. The Board expects to announce the appointments in early January.
Nomination letters should include:
• A résumé for each nominee;
• Nominee's full name, organizational affiliation, title, address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address;
• Nominee organization's name, brief description of organization, address, and phone and fax numbers;
• Information about past and present positions held by the nominee, dates, and description of responsibilities;
• A description of the nominee's special knowledge, interests, or experience related to community development and reinvestment, consumer protection regulations, consumer credit, or other consumer financial services issues;
• Positions held in community organizations and on councils and boards; and
• Nominator's full name, organizational affiliation, title, address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address.
The Board is interested in candidates who have familiarity with consumer financial services, community development and reinvestment, and consumer protection regulations, and who are willing to express their views. Candidates do not have to be experts on all levels of consumer financial services or community reinvestment, but they should possess some basic knowledge of the issues. They must be able and willing to make the necessary time commitment to participate in conference calls and prepare for and attend meetings three times a year (usually for two days, including committee meetings). The meetings are held at the Board's offices in Washington, DC. The Board pays travel expenses, lodging, and a nominal honorarium.
In making the appointments, the Board will seek to complement the background of continuing Council members in terms of affiliation and geographic representation. The Board may consider prior years' nominees and does not limit consideration to individuals nominated by the public when making its selection.
Council members whose terms end as of December 31, 2010, are:
Council members whose terms continue through 2011 and 2012 are:
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) by Rendezvous International (“Rendezvous”), hereinafter “Complainant,” against Chief Cargo Services, Inc., Kaiser Apparel, Inc., Edco Logistics, Inc., Oriental Logistics, Inc., and Razor Enterprise, hereinafter “Respondents.” Complainant asserts that it is a partnership formed in the Country of Pakistan in the business of manufacturing garments. Complainant asserts that Respondents are “corporations and/or business entities formed in the State of New York and doing business in the State of New York” and that Respondents “perform importing services, freight forwarding and handling services, pay duties and freight, and clear shipments of goods through US Customs.”
Complainant alleges that “[t]he transactions of business underlying the
Complainant asserts that it has suffered damages in the sum of “$290,424.91, plus interst/mark-up, plus US$ 7500.00”, for attorney fees and other expenses. Complainant requests that the Commission “investigate the matter”; that Respondents be required to answer the charges made by Complainant; that Respondents be ordered to pay reparations of $290,424.91 with interest, costs and attorney's fees; and order any such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and proper.
This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record.
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by July 25, 2011 and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by November 22, 2011.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
National Public Health Performance Standards Program Local Public Health Governance Assessment (OMB 0920-0580 exp. 8/31/2010)—Extension—Office of State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Office of State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support is proposing to extend the formal, voluntary data collection that assesses the capacity of local boards of health to deliver the essential services of public health. Electronic data submission will be used when local boards of health complete the public health assessment.
A three-year approval is being sought with the current data collection instrument. The data collection instrument has been valuable in assessing performance and capacity and identifying areas for improvement.
From 1998-2002, the CDC National Public Health Performance Standards Program convened workgroups with the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH), the American Public Health Association (APHA), and the Public Health Foundation (PHF) to develop performance standards for public health systems based on the essential services of public health. In 2005, CDC reconvened workgroups with these same organizations to revise the data collection instruments, in order to ensure the standards remain current and improve user friendliness. There is no cost to the respondent, other than their time.
The estimated annualized burden hours are 875.
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: “Eisenberg Center Voluntary Customer Survey Generic Clearance for the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, 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 August 30, 2010.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQs OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (
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
Eisenberg Center Voluntary Customer Survey Generic Clearance for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renew, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, AHRQ's Generic Clearance to collect information from users of work products and services initiated by the John M. Eisenberg Clinical Decisions and Communications Science Center (Eisenberg Center).
AHRQ is the lead agency charged with supporting research designed to improve the quality of healthcare, reduce its cost, improve patient safety, decrease medical errors, and broaden access to essential services.
AHRQ's Eisenberg Center is an innovative effort aimed at improving communication of findings to a variety of audiences (“customers”), including consumers, clinicians, and health care policy makers. The Eisenberg Center compiles research results into a variety of useful formats for customer stakeholders. The Eisenberg Center also conducts its own program of research into effective communication of research findings in order to improve the usability and rapid incorporation of findings into medical practice. The Eisenberg Center is one of three components of AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program,
The collections proposed under this clearance include activities to assist in the development of materials to be disseminated through the Eisenberg Center and to provide feedback to AHRQ on the extent to which these products meet customer needs. These materials include Summary Guides that summarize and translate the findings of comparative effectiveness reviews (CER) and research reports for purposes of summarizing research findings for various decision-making audiences, such as consumers, clinicians, or policymakers. The guides are designed to help these decision makers use research evidence to maximize the benefits of health care, minimize harm, and optimize the use of health care resources. In addition, each year of the project the Eisenberg Center will develop one computerized, interactive decision aid for those clinical problems identified from selected CERs. The intent is for the decision aid to increase the patient/consumer's knowledge of the health condition, options, and risk/benefits, lead to greater assurance in making a decision, increase the congruence between values and choices, and enhance involvement in the decision making process. Information collections conducted under this generic clearance are not required by regulation and will not be used to regulate or sanction customers. Surveys will be entirely voluntary, and information provided by respondents will be combined and summarized so that no individually identifiable information will be released. The Eisenberg Center will produce from 17 to a maximum of 33 Summary Guides per audience (
In accordance with OMB guidelines for generic clearances for voluntary customer surveys and Executive Order 12862, AHRQ has established an independent review process to assure the development, implementation, and analysis of high quality customer surveys within AHRQ. Specifically, AHRQ understands that each activity conducted must be submitted to OMB with a supporting statement and accompanying instruments. Information collection may not proceed until approved by OMB.
Information collections conducted under this clearance will be collected via the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This information will be used to develop, improve and/or maintain high quality products and services to lay and health professional publics.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden for the respondents' time to participate in this research. These estimates assume a maximum of 33 Summary Guides per year and separate Guides for clinicians, policy makers and consumers and are thus slight overestimates. Focus groups will be used for needs assessment and will be conducted with clinicians and consumers for development of the Summary Guides, and additionally with policymakers for those Guides in which policy recommendations are applicable. Focus groups will be conducted with no more than 1,056 persons per year and will last about 1
Once the Summary Guides are developed they will be subjected to in-person or telephone interviews for purposes of usability and product testing with clinicians, policy makers and consumers. In-person/telephone interviews will be conducted twice with about 1,386 persons annually and will take about 66 minutes on average. Two rounds of interviews will be conducted with all consumer representatives during product development, with a second round of interviews conducted occasionally with clinicians and policy makers, as needed.
Customer satisfaction surveys for the Summary Guides will be conducted with approximately 6,600 representatives from the audience to be targeted by the Summary Guides annually (
Customer satisfaction surveys will also be administered to approximately 50 clinicians and 500 patients in evaluating the Decision Aid. These surveys will take about 10 minutes to complete, and will be administered before and after implementation of the Decision Aid in the study populations.
Clinicians that have completed CME accrediting requirements and are requesting CME credit will be asked to complete the follow-up CME Survey three months following completion of the online activity. This data collection will be completed with about 1,320 clinicians annually and will require 5 minutes to complete.
Approximately 2,500 solicited topic nomination forms will be completed annually by healthcare professional and consumer visitors to the Website and will require about 5 minutes to complete. Website Registration will be completed by all persons wanting to stay up-to-date with the latest information from the Eisenberg Center, about 6,000 annually, and requires about 5 minutes to complete. The Glossary Feedback Survey will be completed by about 200 persons annually that access the glossary and takes 5 minutes to complete. The total burden hours are estimated to be 6,203.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondent's time to participate in this research. The cost burden is estimated to be $290,227 annually.
The maximum cost to the Federal Government is estimated to be $1,439,003 annually.
Exhibit 3 shows the total and annualized cost by the major cost components.
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 healthcare research and healthcare 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
National Public Health Performance Standards Program Local Public Health Governance Assessment (OMB 0920-0580 exp. 8/31/2010)—Extension—Office of State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Office of State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support is proposing to extend the formal, voluntary data collection that assesses the capacity of local boards of health to deliver the essential services of public health. Electronic data submission will be used when local boards of health complete the public health assessment.
A three-year approval is being sought with the current data collection instrument. The data collection instrument has been valuable in assessing performance and capacity and identifying areas for improvement.
From 1998-2002, the CDC National Public Health Performance Standards Program convened workgroups with the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH), the American Public Health Association (APHA), and the Public Health Foundation (PHF) to develop performance standards for public health systems based on the essential services of public health. In 2005, CDC reconvened workgroups with these same organizations to revise the data collection instruments, in order to ensure the standards remain current and improve user friendliness. There is no cost to the respondent, other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 875.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)—(OMB No. 0920-0237 exp. 12/31/2011)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social and other health hazards; and determinants of health of the population of the United States. This three-year clearance request includes the data collection in 2011 and 2012 and data planning and testing activities for 2013-2014 data collection.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) was conducted periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999 by the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. Almost 19,000 persons are screened, with about 5,000 participants interviewed and examined annually. Participation in NHANES is completely voluntary and confidential.
NHANES programs produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutrition status of the general population. Through the use of questionnaires, physical examinations, and laboratory tests, NHANES studies the relationship between diet, nutrition and health in a representative sample of the United States. NHANES monitors the prevalence of chronic conditions and risk factors related to health such as arthritis, asthma, osteoporosis, infectious diseases, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, smoking, drug and alcohol use, physical activity, environmental exposures, and diet. NHANES data are used to produce national reference data on height, weight, and nutrient levels in the blood. Results from more recent NHANES can be compared to findings reported from previous surveys to monitor changes in the health of the U.S. population over time. NHANES continues to collect genetic material on a national probability sample for future genetic research aimed at understanding disease susceptibility in the U.S. population. NCHS collects personal identification information from survey respondents to facilitate linkage of survey data with health related administrative records. For the 2011-2012 survey, NHANES will add an Asian oversample to the survey design.
NHANES data users include the U.S. Congress; the World Health Organization; numerous Federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Agriculture; private groups such as the American Heart Association; schools of public health; private businesses; individual practitioners; and administrators. NHANES data are used to establish, monitor, and/or evaluate recommended dietary allowances, food fortification policies, environmental exposures, immunization guidelines and health education and disease prevention programs.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 49,626.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The portion of the meeting devoted to the review and evaluation of journals for potential indexing by the National Library of Medicine will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of the titles of the journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the discussions, and the presence of individuals associated with these publications could significantly frustrate the review and evaluation of individual journals.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of open meeting.
The Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee (HSINAC) will meet from August 31, 2010, to September 1, 2010, in Potomac, MD. This meeting is open to the public during the times listed in this notice.
The HSINAC will meet on Tuesday, August 31, 2010, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on Wednesday, September 1, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The meeting will adjourn early if the committee has completed its business prior to 6 p.m. on September 1.
The meeting convenes at the Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge
Gabrielle Gallegos, Department of Homeland Security, OPS CIO-D Stop 0426, 245 Murray Lane, SW., BLDG 410, Washington, DC 20528-0426,
Notice of this meeting is delivered in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (Pub. L. 92-463). The mission of the Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee is to identify issues and provide to senior leadership of the Department, in particular the Director of Operations Coordination and Planning, independent advice and recommendations for the improvement of the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). The meeting agenda will include discussion of the following topics: HSIN NextGen and the Common Operating Picture upgrade, the HSIN NextGen capabilities release schedule, the DHS portal consolidation program, interoperability across Federal systems, the HSIN business case update, desired future HSIN capabilities, and relocation of the HSIN program.
This meeting is open to the public during the times listed in this notice. Participation in HSINAC deliberations is limited to committee members and Department of Homeland Security officials. The public may attend the meetings, but will not be able to participate in the deliberations. Seating may be limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The Federal Relay Service (FedRelay), a Federal Government telecommunications service, enables those who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf/blind or who have speech disabilities to have equal communication access.
All calls are strictly confidential and no records of conversations are maintained. Toll-Free and Toll Access Numbers for Federal Relay are:
From non-domestic locations the number is 605-331-4923
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-1923-DR), dated July 14, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 14, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Wyoming resulting from flooding during the period of June 4-18, 2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven S. Ward, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Wyoming have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Fremont County and the portions of the Wind River Indian Reservation that lie within Fremont County for Public Assistance.
All counties and Tribes within the State of Wyoming are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-1924-DR), dated July 15, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 15, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nebraska resulting from severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes beginning on June 1, 2010, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Stephen R. Thompson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Nebraska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Antelope, Arthur, Blaine, Boone, Boyd, Brown, Burt, Cass, Chase, Cherry, Cheyenne, Colfax, Cuming, Custer, Dodge, Douglas, Frontier, Garden, Garfield, Greeley, Harlan, Hayes, Holt, Howard, Keya Paha, Knox, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, Madison, McPherson, Morrill, Nance, Nemaha, Nuckolls, Otoe, Perkins, Phelps, Pierce, Platte, Richardson, Rock, Sarpy, Saunders, Sherman, Sioux, Stanton, Thomas, Valley, Washington, Wayne, Webster, and Wheeler Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Nebraska are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1898-DR), dated April 16, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 16, 2010.
Montgomery County for Public Assistance.
Montgomery County for emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Maryland (FEMA-1910-DR), dated May 6, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the
Caroline County for emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for an additional 24-hour period during or proximate to the incident period (already designated for Public Assistance and emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period).
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice of a New Privacy Act SORN.
The Department proposes to establish a new Privacy Act SORN subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The Ginne Mae Master Subservicer System will be used to perform a wide range of loan servicing functions required to process transactions relating to the servicing of home and project loans on behalf of Ginnie Mae. These services include, but are not limited to, servicing current, delinquent and defaulted loans, both pooled and non-pooled, including foreclosure services, management and disposition of acquired properties (Real Estate Owned).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
For Privacy Act related questions contact Donna Robinson-Staton, Departmental Privacy Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number (202) 402-8073. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunication device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Service).
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, notice is given of a new system of records, Ginnie Mae Master Subservicer System. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be afforded a 30-day period in which to comment on the new system of records, and require published notice of the existence and character of the system of records. The new system report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix 1 to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994; 59 FR 37914.
Sec. 306(g), National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1721(g).
Ginnie Mae Master Subservicer System.
Individual borrowers' and co-borrowers' data relating to mortgage loans pooled in or formerly pooled in Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities are located at their respective Ginnie Mae Master Subservicer.
Borrowers and co-borrowers.
May include but are not limited to: Borrower's name, co-borrowers' name(s), social security number, date of birth, property address, telephone number, email address, and income and other financial data; also, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service (RHS), or HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) loan number.
Sec. 306(g), National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1721(g).
The information is used to perform a wide range of loan servicing functions. The data are maintained in a comprehensive loan servicing system that processes transactions relating to the servicing of home and project loans on behalf of Ginnie Mae.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, other routine uses are as follows:
(a) To the U.S. Treasury—for disbursements, adjustments, collection services; and
(b) To the Internal Revenue Service and to state and local governments—for reporting payments for mortgage interest, for reporting of discharge indebtedness and real estate taxes; and
(c) To the U.S. Department of Justice, courts, Federal, state and local government agencies in conjunction with civil, administrative and criminal litigation as well as investigations and audits; and
(d) To individuals and entities under contract, cooperative agreement, or
(e) To credit bureaus and other entities for credit reporting purposes; and
(f) To employers to effect wage garnishment; and
(g) To third party purchasers or potential purchasers in connection with asset sale transactions; and
Additional Disclosure for Purposes of Facilitating Responses and Remediation Efforts in the Event of a Data Breach. A record from a system of records maintained by this Department may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) The Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and
(b) The Department 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 the HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Electronic files are stored on servers and back-up files are stored on tapes. Servers are stored in a secured server room and at an offsite secured facility for disaster contingency. The original collateral documents (hard copy) are stored securely at the contractors' offices or at a secured offsite document storage facility.
Information can be retrieved by borrower's name, social security number, property address, or by FHA, VA, Department of Agriculture RHS, and PIH Master Subservicer's loan numbers.
Electronic records are maintained in a secured computer network behind a firewall. Access to records is limited to authorized personnel.
Are in accordance with HUD Records Disposition Schedule 2225.6, Appendix 20.
The offices of various contractors servicing as Master Subservicers for Ginnie Mae, Office of Mortgage-Backed Securities. Individual borrowers and co-borrowers are to contact the appropriate Master Subservicer identified on their loan payment statements when requesting record access, corrections, monthly mortgage loan payment instructions and/or inquiries.
The Department's rules for providing access to records to the individual concerned appear in 24 CFR part 16. If additional information or assistance is required, individual borrowers and co-borrowers are to contact the System Manager identified above.
The procedures for requesting amendment or correction of records appear in 24 CFR part 16. If additional information is needed, contact:
(i) In relation to contesting contents of records, the Departmental Privacy Officer at HUD, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410; and
(ii) In relation to appeals of initial denials, HUD, Departmental Privacy Appeals Officer, Office of General Counsel, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
Records are established using information received from borrowers and from legal instruments related to borrowers' loans (i.e., mortgages, notes, and deeds).
None.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice of a New Privacy Act SORN.
The Department proposes to establish a new Privacy Act SORN subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, entitled Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Security Unclaimed Funds System. The new record system will be used to track unclaimed security holder payments. Such unclaimed payments are owed to certificate holders of Ginnie Mae-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities who cannot be located by the Ginnie Mae servicer. Ginnie Mae tracks this information to ensure that security holders are paid properly.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
The Privacy Officer, Donna Robinson-Staton, Departmental Privacy Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number (202) 402-8073. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunication device for hearing-and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Service).
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, notice is given of a new system or records, Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Security Unclaimed Funds System. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be afforded a 30-day period in which to comment on the modified system of records, and require published notice of the existence and character of the system of records.
The new system report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix 1 to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining
Sec. 306(g), National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1721(g).
Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities Unclaimed Funds System.
Bank of New York (Contractor site), New York, New York.
Ginnie Mae-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities certificate holders who have not been located.
Security holder's(s') name(s), address, social security number, certificate number, Ginnie Mae pool number, and Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (CUSIP) number.
Sec. 306(g), National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1721(g).
The system is used to track unclaimed security holder payments. Such unclaimed payments are owed to certificate holders of Ginnie Mae-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities who cannot be located by the Ginnie Mae servicer.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, other routine uses are as follows:
(a) To the U.S. Treasury—for disbursements and adjustments; and
(b) To the Internal Revenue Service and to state and local governments—for reporting payments for interest; and
(c) To the U.S. Department of Justice, courts, Federal, state and local government agencies in conjunction with civil, administrative and criminal litigation as well as investigations and audits; and
(d) To individuals and entities under contract, cooperative agreement, or working agreement with HUD to assist the Department in fulfilling its statutory and management responsibilities.
Additional Disclosure for Purposes of Facilitating Responses and Remediation Efforts in the Event of a Data Breach. A record from a system of records maintained by this Department may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) The Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and
(b) the Department 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 the HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Electronic files are stored on servers and back-up files are stored on tapes. Servers are stored in a secured server room and at an offsite secured facility for disaster contingency. The original documents (hard copy) are stored securely at the contractor's office or at a secured offsite document storage facility.
Information is retrieved by security holder's(s') name(s), address, social security number, certificate number, Ginnie Mae pool number, and CUSIP number.
Electronic records are maintained in a secured computer network behind a firewall. Access to records is limited to authorized personnel.
Are in accordance with HUD Records Disposition Schedule 2225.6, Appendix 20.
Bank of New York servicing Ginnie Mae, Office of Program Operations guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. Inquiries or requests are to be submitted to the Bank of New York Mellon, 101 Barclay Street 8 East, New York, New York 10286 (Attention) Evan Delcolle, (202) 815-2086.
The Department's rules for providing access to records to the individual concerned appear in 24 CFR part 16. If additional information or assistance is required, contact the System Manager identified above.
The procedures for requesting amendment or correction of records appear in 24 CFR part 16. If additional information is needed, contact:
(i) In relation to contesting contents of records, the Departmental Privacy Officer at HUD, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 2256, Washington, DC 20410; and
(ii) In relation to appeals of initial denials, HUD, Departmental Privacy Appeals Officer, Office of General Counsel, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
Records are established using information received from servicers of Ginnie Mae-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities.
None.
Office of the Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, Interior
Notice of Availability, Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA)—Realignment of a Portion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Department of the Interior, the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, are evaluating the impacts of the proposed project.
This project anticipates realignment of a portion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) through Provo and Orem, Utah. The realignment is being considered to avoid active and historic landslides and to
Submit written comments on the Draft EA by August 30, 2010.
Send written comments on the Draft EA to Ms. Sarah Sutherland, Provo Reach Realignment, 355 W. University Parkway, Orem, UT 84058-7303, by e-mail to
Copies of the Draft EA are available for inspection at:
• Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 355 West University Parkway, Orem, Utah 84058-7303.
• Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606.
In addition, the document is available at
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Mr. Lee Baxter, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606, by calling (801) 379-1174, or e-mail at
Before including your name, 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; request for comments: draft comprehensive conservation plan/environmental assessment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce the availability of a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge for public review and comment. The CCP/EA, prepared under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes how the Service will manage the Refuge for the next 15 years. Draft compatibility determinations for several existing and proposed public uses are also available for review and public comment.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by August 30, 2010.
Send your comments or requests for more information by any of the following methods.
Sandy Osborn, Planning Team Leader, at (916) 414-6503, or Diane Kodama, Refuge Manager, at (510) 792-0222 or
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation.
We initiated the CCP/EA for the Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge in July 2008. At that time and throughout the process, we requested, considered, and incorporated public scoping comments in numerous ways. Our public outreach has included a
Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1975 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Draft CCP/EA identifies and evaluates three alternatives for managing Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years. The alternative that appears to best meet the Refuge purposes is identified as the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative is identified based on the analysis presented in the Draft CCP/EA, which may be modified following the completion of the public comment period based on comments received from other agencies, Tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, or individuals.
Under Alternative A, the no action alternative, we would continue to manage the Refuge as we have in the recent past. No major changes in habitat management would occur. The Refuge would remain closed to the public.
With Alternative B (preferred alternative), the Service would standardize the monitoring and surveying program for species, construct and improve breeding and ephemeral pond habitat, identify buffer and corridor habitat for boundary expansion and acquisition, develop weed management and prevention/early detection plans, assess contaminants and disease, conduct climate change modeling, identify additional breeding
Alternative C includes all actions in Alternative B, plus expanding natural resource surveys, expanding control of additional priority invasive vegetation, propagating and/or reintroducing listed plants, and improving outreach to neighbors and the community.
The locations, dates, and times of public meetings will be listed in a planning update distributed to the project mailing list and posted on the refuge planning Web site at
Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be obtained by writing to Sandy Osborn (
Comments on the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to Sandy Osborn (
At the end of the review and comment period for this Draft CCP/EA, comments will be analyzed by the Service and addressed in the Final CCP/EA. 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.
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.1(a) (3), that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted final annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.060% (.00060) for tier 2 for calendar year 2010. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 CFR part 518, the preliminary fee rate on class II revenues for calendar year 2010 shall be one-half of the annual fee rate, which is 0.030% (.00030).
Chris White, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers).
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission which is charged with, among other things, regulating gaming on Indian lands.
The regulations of the Commission (25 CFR part 514), as amended, provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates; the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission on a semi-annual basis.
The regulations of the Commission and the final rate being adopted today are effective for calendar year 2010. Therefore, all gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self administer the provisions of these regulations, and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission by December 31, 2010.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, thirty (30) days from the date of publication in the
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5009.
This survey was executed at the request of the Program Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Montana Area Office, Billings, Montana, and was necessary to determine the boundaries of Federal Interest lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in 3 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the Third Guide Meridian West, through Township 37 North, the east boundary, the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 37 North, Range 12 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted July 16, 2010.
We will place a copy of the plat, in 3 sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in 3 sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of Plats of Survey.
The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.
These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment. Contact Marcella Montoya at 505-954-2097, or by e-mail at
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey and survey of the Burec Tract, within the Tierra Amarilla Grant, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted July 6, 2010, for Group 1087 NM.
The plat, in eight sheets, representing the dependent resurvey and survey of the Chama Ranch, within the Tierra Amarilla Grant, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted July 6, 2010, for Group 1087 NM.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey of the Mossman Tract, within the Tierra Amarilla Grant, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted July 6, 2010, for Group 1088 NM.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey and survey, in Township 24 South, Range 1 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 7, 2010, for Group 1090 NM.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey and survey, in Townships 25 and 26 North, Range 13 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 7, 2010, for Group 1082 NM.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey and survey, in Township 17 North, Range 5 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 26, 2010, for Group 1071 NM.
The plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey and survey, in Township 17 North, Range 12 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 13, 2010, for Group 1083 NM.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 24 North, Range 10 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted October 14, 2009, for Group 173 OK.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 18 North, Range 21 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted May 5, 2010, for Group 176 OK.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 22 North, Range 3 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted June 7, 2010, for Group 187 OK.
The plat, in five sheets, representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 9 North, Range 25 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted May 26, 2010, for Group 61 OK.
The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 28 North, Range 24 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted May 24, 2010, for Group 72 OK.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 25 North, Range 10 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted October 14, 2009, for Group 172 OK.
If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats, is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the New Mexico State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
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. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ, and in the possession of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
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 cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
The 57 cultural items are 2 ceramic vessels, 4 non-ceramic vessels, 10 arrow shafts, 4 arrow foreshafts, 12 arrows, 3 quivers, 2 bows, 9 items of clothing, 3 textile fragments, 3 pieces of yucca fiber cord, 1 prayer stick, 2 bags, 1 bundle of human hair and 1 botanical sample. In 1933, the 57 cultural items were removed without an Antiquities Act permit from Hidden House Ruin on National Forest System land, administered by Coconino National Forest, by Clarence R. King of the United Verde Copper Company. In February 1934, the cultural items came into the possession of the Arizona State Museum and have remained at the museum since that time.
According to museum records, the objects were found below the surface with human remains. Both were removed, however, the human remains were immediately reburied. Therefore, the objects are considered to be unassociated funerary objects.
Based on material culture, architecture and site organization, the small cliff dwelling at Hidden House Ruin has been identified as a Southern Sinaguan site in Sycamore Canyon in north-central Arizona and was occupied between A.D. 1100 and A.D. 1300.
Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 57 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual. Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, have also 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 unassociated funerary objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Dr. Frank E. Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Blvd., SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone (505) 842-3238, before August 30, 2010. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMP includes a Federal advisory committee, the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a technical work group (TWG), a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and independent review panels. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The TWG is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and recommendations to the AMWG.
The AMWG will conduct the meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, August 24-25, 2010. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. the first day and will begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at approximately 3 p.m. on the second day.
The meeting will be held at the Bureau of Land Management National Training Center, 9828 N. 31st Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.
Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, telephone (801) 524-3781; facsimile (801) 524-3858; e-mail at
Before including your name, 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.
Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including, among other things, a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Bulletin requires agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies employed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) when selecting peer reviewers who are not government employees. To fulfill this requirement OSHA has developed a Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form, based on NAS, Conflict of Interest Disclosure form. This form will be used to determine whether or not a conflict exists for a potential peer review panel member. For additional information, see the related 60-day preclearance notice published in the
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including, among other things, a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Interested parties are encouraged to send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor—Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax 202-395-5806 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
ERISA section 701(f)(3)(B)(i)(II) requires the Department of Labor to provide employers with model language for the Employer CHIP Notice to enable them to timely comply with this requirement. The model is required to include information on how an employee may contact the State in which the employee resides for additional information regarding potential opportunities for premium assistance, including how to apply for such assistance.
Section 311(b)(1)(D) of CHIPRA provides that the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services shall develop the initial Model Employer CHIP Notices under ERISA section 701(f)(3)(B)(i)(II), and the Department of Labor shall provide such notices to employers, by February 4, 2010. Moreover, each employer is required to provide the initial annual notices to such employer's employees beginning with the first plan year that begins after the date on which the initial model notices are first issued. The ICR relates to the Model Employer Chip Notice
Submission for OMB review; Comment request.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including, among other things, a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Interested parties are encouraged to send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor—Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is announcing an amendment to
• Briefing on management's plans for reviewing and improving LSC performance measures, including identification of possible impediments to development of numerical criteria for the measurement of LSC performance
• Briefing on how the Corporation receives and uses timekeeping data related to service delivery collected from grantees
The Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors will meet on July 30-31, 2010. On Friday July 30, the meeting will commence at 3:15 p.m., Central Time. On July 31, the first meeting will commence at 8:30 a.m., Central Time. On each of these two days, each meeting other than the first meeting of the day will commence promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting.
The Hyatt Regency Hotel, 333 West Kilbourn Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Unless otherwise noticed, all meetings of the LSC Board of Directors are open to public observation. Members of the public that are unable to attend but wish to listen to a public proceeding may do so by following the telephone call-in directions given below. You are asked to keep your telephone muted to eliminate background noises. From time to time the presiding Chair may solicit comments from the public.
• Call toll-free number: 1-(866) 451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348;
• When connected to the call, please “Mute” your telephone immediately.
Open,
•
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Board meeting. However, the transcript of any portions of the closed session falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (9)(B), and the corresponding provisions of the Legal Services Corporation's implementing regulation, 45 CFR 1622.5(a) and (g), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that in his opinion the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
•
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Committee meeting. However, the transcript of any portions of the closed session falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), and the corresponding provisions of the Legal Services Corporation's implementing regulation, 45 CFR 1622.5(a) will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that in his opinion the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
•
• Presentation by David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller
• Presentation by David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller
• Presentation by Victor Fortuno, President
• Comments by David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller
• Comments by Jeffrey Schanz, Inspector General
• Presentation by David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller
• Presentation by Alice Dickerson, Director of Human Resources
• Comments by Mark Freedman, Office of Legal Affairs
• Bristow Hardin, Program Analyst, Office of Program Performance
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of availability of the 2010 Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement.
This notice announces the availability of the 2010 Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. The notice also offers interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 2010 Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement (Supplement). The 2010 Supplement adds thirteen new programs, including two programs added to existing clusters. It deletes two programs and has also been updated for program changes and technical corrections. The two deleted programs are Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 93.794, Reimbursement of State Costs for Provision of Part D Drugs, and CFDA 93.703, ARRA-Grants to Health Centers Program. The CFDA 93.794 program is no longer active (
In total, the 2010 Supplement includes 227 individual programs. A list of changes to the 2010 Supplement can be found at APPENDIX V. It updates APPENDIX VII that provides an audit alert and compliance requirements regarding the grant programs funded under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Due to its length, the 2010 Supplement is not included in this Notice.
The 2010 Supplement will apply to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2009 and supersedes the 2009 Supplement. All comments on the 2010 Supplement must be in writing and received by October 31, 2010. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment closing date.
Electronic mail comments may be submitted to:
Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments may also be sent to via
The 2010 Supplement is available on-line under the Management heading from the OMB home page
Recipients should contact their cognizant or oversight agency for audit, or Federal awarding agency, as appropriate under the circumstances. The Federal agency contacts are listed in Appendix III of the Supplement. Subrecipients should contact their pass-through entity. Federal agencies should contact Gilbert Tran, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial Management, at (202) 395-3052.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate):
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of November 10, 2009, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman. If you need any accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by September 27, 2010, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by September 27, 2010, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by September 27, 2010, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Ty Naquin, Project Manager, Uranium Enrichment Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 492-3187; Fax Number: (301) 492-3359; E-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has conducted inspections of the Louisiana Energy Services (LES), LLC, National Enrichment Facility in Eunice, New Mexico, and has verified that cascade number 1 of the facility has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the approved license. The NRC staff has prepared inspection reports documenting its findings in accordance with the requirements of the NRC Inspection Manual. As a result of these inspections, on June 10, 2010, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operations of cascade number 1. The publication of this Notice satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 70.32(k) and section 193(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The introduction of uranium hexafluoride into any module of the National Enrichment Facility is not permitted until the Commission completes an operational readiness and management measures verification review to verify that management measures that ensure compliance with the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 have been implemented and confirms that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the license and will be operated safely. This notice addresses the licensee's readiness for its first phase of plant operation. Subsequent operational readiness and management measures verification reviews will continue throughout the various phases of plant construction and, upon completion of these subsequent phases, additional notices will be posted to verify that the phase in question has been constructed in accordance with the license and to acknowledge licensee readiness for operations. As additional cascades are made available for inspection, the Commission will determine whether they are authorized for use. Any cascade authorizations will be discussed in the additional notices.
Documents related to this action are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
Several inspections of the Information Security Program were completed. These inspections included reviews of how classified matter is protected at the facility as well as reviews of classified computer networks. These inspection reports have not been listed in this Notice because they are not available publicly.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on ESBWR will hold a meeting on August 16-17, 2010,
Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to General Electric—Hitachi Nuclear Americas, LLC (GEH) and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss Chapters 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 of the final Safety Evaluation Report associated with the ESBWR design. In addition, the Subcommittee will discuss the staff's evaluations of licensing technical reports NEDC-33373P, “Dynamic, Load-Drop and Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis for ESBWR Fuel Racks,” NEDC-33374P, “Safety Analysis Report for Fuel Storage Racks Criticality Analysis for ESBWR Plants,” NEDE-33083P, “TRACG Application for ESBWR,” NEDE-33083P, Supplement 1, “TRACG Application for ESBWR Stability Analysis,” NEDE-33083P, Supplement 2, “TRACG Application for ESBWR Anticipated Transient Without Scram Analyses,” and NEDE-33083P, Supplement 3, “TRACG Application for ESBWR Transient Analysis.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, GEH, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or E-mail
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on August 18, 2010, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the Kewaunee Power Station License Renewal Application and the associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with open items prepared by the staff. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Dominion Energy Kewaunee, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Girija Shukla (Telephone 301-415-6855 or E-mail
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
The ACRS Subcommittee on Siting will hold a meeting on August 19-20, 2010, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (Shaw-Areva MOX Services, LLC) proposed for construction at Savannah River. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Shaw-Areva, LLC, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Neil Coleman (Telephone 301-415-7656 or E-mail
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service filing to add Priority Mail Contract 27 to the competitive product list. The Postal Service has also filed a related contract. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Comments are due: July 30, 2010.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2010-77.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of the Governor's Decision No. 09-6, originally filed in Docket No. MC2009-25, authorizing certain Priority Mail contracts;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—a proposed change in the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and supporting document under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Brian G. Denneny, Acting Manager, Sales and Communications, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the specific Priority Mail Contract 27, under seal. It maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer's name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, cost data, and financial projections should remain under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2010-32 and CP2010-77 for consideration of the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 27 product and the related contract, respectively. In keeping with practice, these dockets are addressed on a consolidated basis for purposes of this order; however, future filings should be made in the specific docket in which issues being addressed pertain.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642 and 39 CFR part 3015 and 39 CFR 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 30, 2010. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2010-32 and CP2010-77 for consideration of the matter raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L. Harrington is appointed to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than July 30, 2010.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
The Presidio Trust.
Notice.
The Presidio Trust (Trust) is considering two approaches to limit vehicular use of a portion of Battery Caulfield Road in the Presidio of San Francisco (Presidio): (1) Limitation of vehicular use during weekday peak AM and PM hours, 7 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 7 p.m., as well as on weekends (Alternative 1); or (2) limitation of vehicular use at all times (Alternative 2). The proposed limitation on vehicular use is intended to reduce the amount of cut-through traffic to maintain public health and safety, to protect environmental values, to protect natural resources, and to avoid conflict among visitor uses. By restricting the use of Battery Caulfield Road, the Trust also intends to reduce the amount of traffic through the 14th and 15th Avenue gates. Under both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, designated vehicles (
Located in the Public Health Service Hospital (PHSH) District at the southern end of the Presidio, Battery Caulfield Road is not a major thoroughfare within the Presidio, but rather it is a narrow roadway connecting the upper and lower plateaus of the PHSH District (District). Battery Caulfield Road was built by the Army in 1984 to facilitate internal circulation, not to accommodate through-traffic. The road passes through sensitive wildlife areas and native plant communities, and recreational use of the area has increased with the expansion of the Presidio's trails and bikeways. Of the total daily traffic through the 15th Avenue gate, an estimated 350-550 cars use Battery Caulfield Road as a cut-through route,
Under 36 CFR 1001.5, the Board of Directors of the Trust (Board) may impose public use limits or close all or a portion of the area administered by the Trust to all public use or to a specific use or activity, given a determination that such action is necessary to maintain public health and safety, to protect environmental or scenic values, to protect natural or cultural resources, or to avoid conflict among visitor use activities. In its April 2007 Record of Decision for the development of the District, the Board identified its intent to restrict use of Battery Caulfield
By Resolution 08-5 adopted on November 13, 2007, the Board determined that limiting vehicular use of Battery Caulfield Road is necessary to maintain public health and safety, to protect environmental values, to protect natural resources, and to avoid conflict among visitor uses, and authorized the Trust Executive Director to implement Alternative 2. As 36 CFR 1001.5(c) encourages the achievement of public use limits by less restrictive measures where possible, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 08-5 Trust staff revisited the approach to achieve the desired traffic limitation on Battery Caulfield Road, and have determined that it may possibly be met by Alternative 1, a closure that is limited to weekday peak hours and to weekends.
Under Alternative 1, northbound motor vehicle access on Battery Caulfield Road will be restricted beginning approximately at the northern edge of the parking lot at the District lower plateau. Advance warning signage within the District, within the park as a whole, and within the immediate areas of the City (subject to consent by the City of San Francisco) will notify drivers of the restrictions. Southbound traffic will be restricted at the intersection of Battery Caulfield Road and Washington Boulevard. Access by pedestrians and bicyclists will not be restricted, and the anticipated reduction in traffic is expected to improve conditions for these park users. If the Trust determines that Alternative 1 is insufficient to reduce the cut-through traffic adequately, then the Trust will implement Alternative 2.
John Fa (415.561.5065), The Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052.
If individuals submitting comments request that their address or other contact information be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comments. The Trust will make available for public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses. Anonymous comments may not be considered.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to (a) section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements.
Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Northern Funds (“NF”), Northern Institutional Funds (“NIF”, each of NF and NIF a “Trust,” and together, the “Trusts”), Northern Trust Investments, N.A. (“NTI”), Northern Trust Global Investments Limited (“NTGIL”), and The Northern Trust Company of Connecticut (“NTCC”) (each of NTI, NTGIL, and NTCC, an “Adviser,” and such entities together, the “Advisers”).
The application was filed on September 30, 2009, and amended on March 4, 2010. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 17, 2010, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: NF, NIF, and NTI, 50 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603; NTGIL, 50 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London E14 5NT, United Kingdom; NTCC, 300 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06901.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6826 or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Each Trust consists of multiple series (“Funds”). Certain of the Funds hold themselves out as money market funds in reliance on rule 2a-7 under the Act (the “Money Market Funds”). NTI, NTGIL, and NTCC are each registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and are each indirect subsidiaries of Northern Trust Corporation. NTI is a national banking
2. At any particular time, while some Funds enter into repurchase agreements, or invest their cash balances in Money Market Funds or other short-term instruments, other Funds may need to borrow money for temporary purposes to satisfy redemption requests, to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls such as a trade “fail” in which cash payment for a security sold by a Fund has been delayed, or for other temporary purposes. Currently, the Trusts have a $100 million revolving bank credit agreement administered by a bank (the “Committed Credit Facility”) for short-term temporary purposes.
3. When a Fund borrows money under the Committed Credit Facility, it pays interest on the loan at a rate that is significantly higher than the rate that is earned by other (non-borrowing) Funds on investments in repurchase agreements, Money Market Funds, and other short-term instruments of the same maturity as the bank loan. Applicants assert that this differential represents the profit earned by the lender on loans and is not attributable to any material difference in the credit quality or risk of such transactions.
4. The Trusts seek to enter into master interfund lending agreements (“Interfund Lending Agreements”) with each other on behalf of the Funds that would permit each Fund to lend money directly to and borrow directly from other Funds through a credit facility for temporary purposes (an “Interfund Loan”). The Money Market Funds typically will not participate as borrowers in the proposed credit facility. Applicants state that the proposed credit facility would both substantially reduce the Funds' potential borrowing costs and enhance the ability of the lending Funds to earn higher rates of interest on their short-term lendings. Although the proposed credit facility would substantially reduce the Funds' need to borrow from banks, the Funds would be free to establish and maintain committed lines of credit or other borrowing arrangements with unaffiliated banks.
5. Applicants anticipate that the proposed credit facility would provide a borrowing Fund with significant savings at times when the cash position of the borrowing Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This situation could arise when shareholder redemptions exceed anticipated volumes and certain Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet redemption requests, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions). However, redemption requests normally are effected immediately. The proposed credit facility would provide a source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the sale of portfolio securities.
6. Applicants also anticipate that a Fund could use the proposed credit facility when a sale of securities “fails” due to circumstances beyond the Fund's control, such as a delay in the delivery of cash to the Fund's custodian or improper delivery instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. “Sales fails” may present a cash shortfall if the Fund has undertaken to purchase a security using the proceeds from securities sold. Alternatively, the Fund could “fail” on its intended purchase due to lack of funds from the previous sale, resulting in additional cost to the Fund, or sell a security on a same-day settlement basis, earning a lower return on the investment. Use of the proposed credit facility under these circumstances would enable the Fund to have access to immediate short-term liquidity.
7. While bank borrowings generally could supply needed cash to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the proposed credit facility, a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than those that would be payable under short-term loans offered by banks. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or Money Market Funds. Thus, applicants assert that the proposed credit facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
8. The interest rate to be charged to the Funds on any Interfund Loan (the “Interfund Loan Rate”) would be the average of the “Repo Rate” and the “Bank Loan Rate,” both as defined below. The Repo Rate for any day would be the highest or best (after giving effect to factors such as the credit quality of the counterparty) rate available to a lending Fund from investment in overnight repurchase agreements with counterparties approved by the Fund or its Adviser. The Bank Loan Rate for any day would be calculated by the Interfund Lending Committee, as defined below, each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a formula established by each Fund's board of trustees (the “Trustees”) intended to approximate the lowest interest rate at which bank short-term loans would be available to the Funds. The formula would be based upon a publicly available rate (
9. The proposed credit facility would be administered by investment professionals and administrative personnel from one or more of the Advisers (the “Interfund Lending Committee”). No portfolio manager of any Fund will serve as a member of the Interfund Lending Committee. Under the proposed credit facility, the portfolio managers for each participating Fund could provide standing instructions to participate daily as a borrower or lender. The Interfund Lending Committee on each business day would collect data on the uninvested cash and borrowing requirements of all participating Funds. Once it had determined the aggregate amount of cash available for loans and borrowing demand, the Interfund Lending Committee would allocate loans among borrowing Funds without any further communication from the
10. The Interfund Lending Committee would allocate borrowing demand and cash available for lending among the Funds on what the Interfund Lending Committee believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time of filing requests to participate, minimum loan lot sizes, and the need to minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative costs. To reduce transaction costs, each loan normally would be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of participants necessary to complete the loan transaction. The method of allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by each Fund's Trustees, including a majority of Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as that term is defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”), to ensure that both borrowing and lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.
11. The Advisers would: (a) Monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the loans; (b) limit the borrowings and loans entered into by each Fund to ensure that they comply with the Fund's investment policies and limitations; (c) ensure equitable treatment of each Fund; and (d) make quarterly reports to the Trustees concerning any transactions by the Funds under the proposed credit facility and the Interfund Loan Rate charged.
12. Each Adviser, through the Interfund Lending Committee, would administer the proposed credit facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management contract with each Fund and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the proposed credit facility. An Adviser may collect standard pricing, record keeping, bookkeeping and accounting fees associated with the transfer of cash and/or securities in connection with repurchase and lending transactions generally, including transactions effected through the proposed credit facility. Such fees would be no higher than those applicable for comparable bank loan transactions.
13. No Fund may participate in the proposed credit facility unless: (a) The Fund has obtained shareholder approval for its participation, if such approval is required by law; (b) the Fund has fully disclosed all material information concerning the credit facility in its prospectus and/or statement of additional information; and (c) the Fund's participation in the credit facility is consistent with its investment objectives, limitations and organizational documents.
14. In connection with the credit facility, applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting them from the provisions of sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act exempting them from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act exempting them from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and under section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements.
1. Section 17(a)(3) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or affiliated person of an affiliated person, from borrowing money or other property from the registered investment company. Section 21(b) of the Act generally prohibits any registered management company from lending money or other property to any person, directly or indirectly, if that person controls or is under common control with that company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person, in part, to be any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the “power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company,” but excludes circumstances in which “such power is solely the result of an official position with such company.” Applicants state that the Funds may be under common control by virtue of having common investment advisers and/or by having common Trustees and officers.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that an exemptive order may be granted where an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy these standards for the reasons discussed below.
3. Applicants assert that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act were intended to prevent a party with strong potential adverse interests to, and some influence over the investment decisions of, a registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the benefit of such party and that are detrimental to the best interests of the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the proposed credit facility transactions do not raise these concerns because: (a) Each Adviser, through the Interfund Lending Committee, would administer the program as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management contract with each Fund; (b) all Interfund Loans would consist only of uninvested cash reserves that the lending Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments either directly or through a Money Market Fund; (c) the Interfund Loans would not involve a significantly greater risk than such other investments; (d) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate higher than it could otherwise obtain through such other investments; and (e) the borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise available to it under its bank loan agreements and avoid some up-front commitment fees associated with committed lines of credit. Moreover, applicants assert that the other terms and conditions that applicants propose also would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.
4. Section 17(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from selling securities or other property to the investment company. Section 17(a)(2) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from purchasing securities or other property
5. Applicants state that the obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1). Applicants also state that any pledge of assets in connection with an Interfund Loan could be construed as a purchase of the borrowing Fund's securities or other property for purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt persons or transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and to the extent that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants contend that the standards under sections 6(c), 17(b), and 12(d)(1)(J) are satisfied for all the reasons set forth above in support of their request for relief from sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) and for the reasons discussed below. Applicants also state that the requested relief from section 17(a)(2) of the Act meets the standards of section 6(c) and 17(b) because any collateral pledged to secure an Interfund Loan would be subject to the same conditions imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other circumstance).
6. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) was intended to prevent the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid imposing on investors additional and duplicative costs and fees attendant upon multiple layers of investments. Applicants submit that the proposed credit facility does not involve these abuses. Applicants note that there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or their shareholders, and that each Adviser will receive no additional compensation for its services in administering the credit facility. Applicants also note that the purpose of the proposed credit facility is to provide economic benefits for all the participating Funds and their shareholders.
7. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits open-end investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank, provided, that immediately after the borrowing, there is asset coverage of at least 300 per centum for all borrowings of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term “senior security” generally includes any bond, debenture, note or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness. Applicants request exemptive relief under section 6(c) from section 18(f)(1) to the limited extent necessary to implement the proposed credit facility (because the lending Funds are not banks).
8. Applicants believe that granting relief under section 6(c) is appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based on the conditions and safeguards described in the application, applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other Funds pursuant to the proposed credit facility is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1).
9. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, when acting as principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the investment company participates, unless, upon application, the transaction has been approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
10. Applicants assert that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and unfair advantage to insiders. Applicants assert that the proposed credit facility is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act in that it offers both reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment limitations. Applicants assert that each Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility would be on terms that are no different from or less advantageous than that of other participating Funds.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Interfund Loan Rate will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate.
2. On each business day, the Interfund Lending Committee will compare the Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is: (a) More favorable to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate and, if applicable, the yield of any money market fund in which the lending Fund could otherwise invest; and (b) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.
3. If a Fund has outstanding bank borrowings, any Interfund Loans to the Fund: (a) Will be at an interest rate equal to or lower than the interest rate of any outstanding bank loan; (b) will be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral; (c) will have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days); and (d) will provide that, if an event of default by the Fund occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that event of default will automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under the Interfund Lending Agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan (and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral) and that such call will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.
4. A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the proposed credit facility if its outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets, provided that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another Fund, the Fund's interfund borrowing will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the proposed credit facility only on a secured basis. A Fund may not borrow through the proposed credit facility or from any other source if its total outstanding
5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may, through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund must first secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding borrowings of a Fund with outstanding Interfund Loans exceed 10% of its total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one business day thereafter: (a) Repay all of its outstanding Interfund Loans; (b) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to 10% or less of its total assets; or (c) secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at which time the collateral called for by this condition 5 shall no longer be required. Until each Interfund Loan that is outstanding at any time that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceed 10% is repaid or the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund will mark the value of the collateral to market each day and will pledge such additional collateral as is necessary to maintain the market value of the collateral that secures each outstanding Interfund Loan at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the Interfund Loan.
6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the proposed credit facility if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the proposed credit facility to exceed 15% of the lending Fund's current net assets at the time of the loan.
7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.
9. A Fund's borrowings through the proposed credit facility, as measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions for the preceding seven calendar days or 102% of the Fund's sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.
10. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.
11. A Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility must be consistent with its investment objectives and limitations and organizational documents.
12. The Interfund Lending Committee will calculate total Fund borrowing and lending demand through the proposed credit facility, and allocate loans on an equitable basis among the Funds, without the intervention of any portfolio manager of the Funds. The Interfund Lending Committee will not solicit cash for the proposed credit facility from any Fund or prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio managers. The Interfund Lending Committee will invest any amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with the standing instructions of the portfolio managers or such remaining amounts will be invested directly by the portfolio managers of the Funds.
13. The Interfund Lending Committee will monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report to the Trustees of each Fund concerning the participation of the Funds in the proposed credit facility and the terms and other conditions of any extensions of credit under the credit facility.
14. The Trustees of each Fund, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will:
(a) Review, no less frequently than quarterly, the Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility during the preceding quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such transactions;
(b) Establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the interest rate on Interfund Loans and review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula; and
(c) Review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility.
15. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its terms and such default is not cured within two business days from its maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment under the provisions of the Interfund Lending Agreement, an Adviser will promptly refer such loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected by the Trustees of each Fund involved in the loan who will serve as arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans.
16. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction by it under the proposed credit facility occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting forth a description of the terms of the transactions, including the amount, the maturity and the Interfund Loan Rate, the rate of interest available at the time each Interfund Loan is made on overnight repurchase agreements and commercial bank borrowings, the yield of any money market fund in which the lending Fund could otherwise invest, and such other information presented to the Fund's Trustees in connection with the review required by conditions 13 and 14.
17. The Advisers will prepare and submit to the Trustees for review an initial report describing the operations of the proposed credit facility and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds are treated fairly. After the commencement of the proposed credit facility, the Advisers will report on the operations of the proposed credit facility at the Trustees' quarterly meetings.
Each Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4) under the Act, shall prepare an annual report for its Trustees each year that the Fund participates in the proposed credit facility, that evaluates the Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. Each Fund's chief compliance officer will also annually file a certification pursuant to Item 77Q3 of Form N-SAR as such Form may be revised, amended or superseded from time to time, for each year that the Fund participates in the proposed credit facility, that certifies that the Fund and the Advisers have established procedures reasonably designed to
(a) That the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate and, if applicable, the yield of the money market funds, but lower than the Bank Loan Rate;
(b) Compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the application;
(c) Compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund borrowing and lending;
(d) Allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by the Trustees; and
(e) That the Interfund Loan Rate does not exceed the interest rate on any third party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at the time of the Interfund Loan.
Additionally, each Fund's independent public accountants, in connection with their audit examination of the Fund, will review the operation of the proposed credit facility for compliance with the conditions of the application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR.
18. No Fund will participate in the proposed credit facility upon receipt of requisite regulatory approval unless it has fully disclosed in its prospectus and/or statement of additional information all material facts about its intended participation.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV, Section 6 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”) to expand the Exchange's $1 Strike Price Program (the “$1 Strike Program” or “Program”) to allow the Exchange to select 150 individual stocks on which options may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, on the Commission's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to expand the $1 Strike Program (the “Program”).
The Exchange now proposes to expand the Program to allow BOX to select a total of 150 individual stocks on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. The existing restrictions on listing $1 strikes would continue,
As stated in the filings establishing BOX's Program and in subsequent extensions and expansions of the Program,
BOX believes that market conditions have led to an increase in the number of securities trading below $50 warranting the proposed expansion of the $1 Strike Program.
The Exchange notes that, in addition to options classes that are trading pursuant to the $1 strike programs of options exchanges, there are also options trading at $1 strike intervals on BOX on over 95 exchange-traded fund shares (“ETFs”) and exchange-traded notes (ETNs”),
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, BOX has analyzed its capacity and the Exchange represents that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with the listing and trading of an expanded number of series in the $1 Strike Program.
BOX believes that the $1 Strike Program has provided investors with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the ability to more closely tailor their investment and risk management strategies and decisions to the movement of the underlying security. Furthermore, BOX has not detected any material proliferation of illiquid options series resulting from the narrower strike price intervals. For these reasons, BOX requests an expansion of the current Program and the opportunity to provide investors with additional strikes for investment, trading, and risk management purposes.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Addendum C of NSCC's Rules and Procedures (“Rules”) to implement risk enhancements so that municipal and corporate bonds would be ineligible for lending through the Stock Borrow Program (“SBP”) and so that Members would be prevented from lending securities through the SBP that were issued by that Member or any of its affiliates.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) proposes amending its Rules to implement risk enhancements so that municipal and corporate bonds would be ineligible for lending through the SBP and so that Members would be prevented from lending securities through the SBP that were issued by that Member or any of its affiliates.
In the course of daily operations, NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”) system often requires a number of shares for a particular security that exceeds the number of shares available to NSCC through Member deliveries. This can arise for several reasons including satisfaction of Member priority requests for allocation as well as buy-ins submitted by Members. To improve the efficiency of the clearing system in these situations, NSCC's Board authorized implementation of automated stock borrow procedures to meet these needs for shares of a particular CNS security.
Members wishing to participate in the SBP notify NSCC each day
After NSCC's nighttime processing of regular deliveries, unsatisfied needs that remain in a particular security are borrowed from Members that identified available securities for the nighttime SBP.
After reviewing the SBP, NSCC has determined that it faces increased risks in two situations. Specifically, NSCC has identified increased risks when NSCC borrows municipal or corporate bonds and when NSCC borrows securities issued by the lending Member or any of its affiliates. First, if NSCC is unable to timely close out long positions in corporate or municipal bonds that were created by loans of such securities from a Member that becomes insolvent, then NSCC may possess high concentrations of corporate or municipal bonds that it cannot deliver to the insolvent Member. Consequently, NSCC bears an increased risk of loss because it would be forced to liquidate those corporate or municipal bond positions in thinly traded markets. Second, NSCC incurs credit exposure in instances where it borrows securities from a Member that is also the issuer of the securities or is an affiliate of the issuer. In the event that such a Member becomes insolvent, then NSCC incurs the additional risk that the securities issued by the Member or its affiliate and that are lent through the SBP will likely decline in value.
In both situations, NSCC believes there are certain risks posed by the SBP that outweigh the benefits to NSCC and its Members. Accordingly, NSCC proposes amending its Rules so that municipal and corporate bonds would be ineligible for lending through the SBP and so that Members would be unable to lend securities through the SBP that are issued by the Member or its affiliates. Members would be advised of the implementation date for these proposed changes through the issuance of an NSCC Important Notice. The language of the proposed changes to NSCC's Rules and Procedures can be found in Exhibit 5 to proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2010-07 at
NSCC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 27, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would remove the disclosure requirements that a listed company must fulfill when it relies on certain exceptions to Nasdaq rules concerning the composition and independence of audit, compensation, and nominating committees, and replace them with references to equivalent disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act of 1933. The proposal also would add a reference to the disclosures that a listed company must make pursuant to Rule 10A-3 under the Act when a listed company relies on certain exceptions to that rule. The proposal further would allow a listed company the option of disclosing on or through its website, instead of in its annual proxy (or similar document), when it has relied on the exception that permits the appointment of a non-independent director to a company's compensation or nominating committee in exceptional and limited circumstances.
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to assess member firms a monthly fee for each additional market participant identifier or maker participant identifier (“MPID”) approved by NASDAQ for use by a member firm on NASDAQ's systems beyond the primary MPID. NASDAQ plans to implement the proposed fee pursuant to Rule 7001 beginning September 1, 2010.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized.
(a)-(b) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ is proposing to assess a fee for each MPID approved by NASDAQ for use by a member firm on NASDAQ's systems in excess of one. MPIDs are special numerical identifiers assigned to certain broker-dealers to identify the firms' transaction and quoting activity. NASDAQ administers the assignment of MPIDs, which may be requested by broker-dealers for use on NASDAQ systems, reporting to FINRA, or a combination of the two. NASDAQ member firms are assigned a unique Primary MPID upon gaining NASDAQ membership. A member firm may, however, request additional MPIDs beyond its Primary MPID, called Supplemental MPIDs. Currently, NASDAQ does not assess a fee for the privilege of using approved Supplemental MPIDs on NASDAQ. In recent years, member firms have increasingly adopted business structures and strategies that require multiple Supplemental MPIDs. Member firms use
NASDAQ proposes to assess a monthly fee for each Supplemental MPID approved by NASDAQ for use by a member firm on NASDAQ's systems. Supplemental MPIDs that are used exclusively for reporting information to facilities of FINRA that are operated by NASDAQ will be excluded from this fee; however, a member firm would be assessed the proposed fee for every month that a Supplemental MPID is not used exclusively for such FINRA reporting purposes. NASDAQ believes that assessing a fee on Supplemental MPIDs will benefit the markets and investors because such a fee will promote efficiency in MPID use. NASDAQ notes that certain member firms possess many MPIDs through which very little activity occurs. These unused or underutilized MPIDs provide negligible benefit to the market, yet represent an administrative and regulatory burden to NASDAQ.
NASDAQ notes that the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) assesses fees for firm access to its floor, and NASDAQ believes such fees are analogous to the proposed fees for assignment of multiple MPIDs.
Competition for order flow is fierce among the national securities exchanges and other trading venues. As a consequence, member firms may easily re-direct order flow away from a trading venue should they determine that the venue's fees are set too high. As noted above, use of multiple MPIDs is generally a business decision made by member firms, and to the extent that such firms believe the MPID fee is excessive they may eliminate unneeded Supplemental MPIDs or may choose to move their order flow to other markets.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. As the Commission has recognized,
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to both add and remove certain options from the Exchange's current Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols in Section I of the Fee Schedule.
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative for transactions settling on or after August 2, 2010.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to increase liquidity and to attract order flow by increasing the number of options to be included in the Exchange's current Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols as well as removing three options. Currently, the Exchange has 81 symbols
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add the following four options to the Select Symbols: (i) BP p.l.c. Common Stock (“BP”), (ii) Baidu, Inc. (“BIDU”), (iii) IShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (“FXI”), and (iv) Exxon Mobil Corp. (“XOM”), collectively (“the options”). These additional 4 symbols would be subject to the Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove the following three options from the Select Symbols: (i) ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“ARIA”), (ii) Star Scientific, Inc. (“CIGX”) and (iii) Palm, Inc. (“PALM”).
The Exchange currently assesses a per-contract transaction charge in various Select Symbols on six different categories of market participants that submit orders and/or quotes that “take,” liquidity from the Exchange: (i) Specialists, Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”),
The Exchange also currently provides certain per-contract rebates for orders or quotations that add liquidity in the Select Symbols. The amount of the rebate depends on the category of participant whose order or quote was executed as part of the Phlx Best Bid and Offer. Finally, the Exchange assesses a $0.05 per contract fee for adding liquidity in the select Symbols for Firms and Broker-Dealers.
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative for transactions settling on or after August 2, 2010.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The proposed rule change would amend OCC's By-Laws and Rules to change its method of holding certain securities pledged by Members to satisfy margin and clearing fund obligations.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would amend OCC's By-Laws and Rules to change OCC's method of holding certain securities pledged by Members to satisfy margin and clearing fund obligations. Securities issued by the United States or Canadian governments and securities issued by U.S. government-sponsored enterprises (“Government Securities”) are among the securities OCC's Members may deposit to satisfy margin and clearing fund obligations. OCC currently permits Members to satisfy such obligations by means of a paper pledge agreement or an electronic pledge system of a depository approved by OCC.
Instead of continuing to use these types of Government Securities pledges, OCC proposes taking direct control of Government Securities that Members pledge to satisfy margin and clearing fund obligations. OCC would require that such pledged securities be held in an account in the name of OCC and The EDP Pledge System would be retained during a transition period designated by OCC.
OCC believes this proposed change to how margin and clearing fund deposits are held would enhance OCC's control of such securities and would allow OCC to access such securities more efficiently. OCC intends for the proposed change to relate only to the mechanism through which the securities would be held and not to affect the respective rights of OCC or its Members in the deposited securities. The general lien granted under new paragraph (b) of Article VIII, Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws, would replace the security interests created through the pledge mechanisms where securities are held directly in OCC's name. To preserve flexibility for OCC to be able to respond to unanticipated circumstances, the amendment would allow OCC to specify a different method of accepting margin and clearing fund deposits if necessary.
The proposed change would also provide clarification regarding how OCC would credit foreign currency toward clearing fund and margin requirements. OCC does not presently accept foreign currency either as clearing fund contributions or margin deposits. However, because Canadian government securities are included in the definition of Government Securities OCC could receive and could potentially hold Canadian dollars it receives as interest on or as proceeds from those securities. When determining the U.S. dollar value of such foreign currency, OCC would conduct its valuations in the same way that it has previously valued margin deposits of assets that are denominated in a foreign currency. This involves using such exchange rates and “haircuts” as OCC deems appropriate. To reflect this policy, OCC is proposing a minor amendment to Rule 604(e) as well as adding a similar provision in Section 3 of Article VIII of the By-Laws.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange submits this proposed rule change to extend the pilot period of the Exchange's prior approval for Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) to receive inbound routes of certain option orders from Nasdaq Options Services, LLC (“NOS”) through November 17, 2010.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, NOS is the approved outbound routing facility of the NASDAQ Exchange for NOM, providing outbound routing from NOM to other market centers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by August 30, 2010.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated
Gary Jensen, 202-366-2048 or Marshall Wainright, 202-366-4842, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by August 30, 2010.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2010-0097.
Erin Kenley, 202-366-8556, Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Beginning in Fiscal Year 1996, States' failure to comply by October 1 of each fiscal year resulted in a withholding penalty of 10 percent from major categories of Federal-aid funds (i.e., National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program and the Interstate Maintenance Program) from States' apportionments for the fiscal year. Any funds withheld in Fiscal Year 1996 and thereafter cannot be restored and will be redistributed.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described
Please submit comments by August 30, 2010.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2010-0096.
Henry Murdaugh, 703-235-0535, Office of Professional and Corporate Development, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The NHI is authorized under Section 5204 of The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) which calls for the development and delivery of courses for the transportation community and requires the involvement and satisfaction measurement of transportation partners. One vital component involved in reaching those goals is providing training pertaining to highway activities, making sure that professionals and members of the public have access to the best, most accurate information. Towards this goal, the NHI develops and implements applicable training programs. To manage this increasingly complex task and to make the training process more accessible and useful, NHI has automated an online training management tool—the NHI Web Portal. The training evaluation and registration forms collect basic participant data for record keeping and basic course and instructor evaluation information for customer feedback about what NHI is doing well and what we need to improve.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by August 30, 2010.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2010-0098.
Carol Tan, Ph.D, Office of Safety Research and Development (HRDS), at (202) 493-3315, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA, 22101, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
The OECD describes two complementary procedures to be performed for acquiring the data needed to understand the causes of motorcycle crashes. The first of these is the traditional in-depth crash investigation that focuses on the sequence of events leading up to the crash, and on the motorcycle, rider, and environmental characteristics that may have been relevant to the crash. The second procedure, known as the case-control procedure, complements the first. It requires the acquisition of matched control data to allow for a determination of the extent to which rider and driver characteristics, and pre-crash factors observed in the crash vehicles, are present in similarly-at-risk control vehicles.
Such a dual approach offers specific advantages to the understanding of crashes and the development of countermeasures. The in-depth study of the crash by itself allows for analysis of the events antecedent to the crash, some of which, if removed or altered, could result in a change in subsequent events that would have led to a non-crash, or reduced crash severity outcome. For example, an in-depth crash investigation may reveal that an automobile approaching an intersection was in a lane designated for straight through traffic only, but the motorist proceeded to make a left turn from that lane into the path of an oncoming motorcycle. That finding can, by itself, be used to develop countermeasures, and does not require matched control data. However, acquiring matched control data from similarly-at-risk riders and drivers provides additional critical information about crash causes that cannot be obtained if only crashes are examined. The main purpose of acquiring matched data is to allow for inferences to be made regarding risk factors for crash causes. A brief explanation is provided here so that those less familiar with case-control procedures will understand the advantage of acquiring controls.
To properly acquire in-depth crash data, it is necessary to find a location in the country that experiences the full range of motorcycle crash types that occur under a wide range of conditions and with a wide range of motorcycle rider characteristics. The location must also have a sufficiently high frequency of motorcycle crashes to allow acquisition of the crash data in a reasonable amount of time. It is anticipated that it will be possible to find a single location meeting these requirements.
It is not necessary that the crash types observed (or other composite indices or parameters of interest) be drawn from a nationally representative sample, because it is not the intent of FHWA to make projections of the national incidence of the causes of crashes involving motorcycles from this study. Rather, the focus will be on identifying the antecedents and risk factors associated with motorcycle crashes. If it is deemed necessary, FHWA and NHTSA may utilize their alternative databases that incorporate certain of the key variables that will be acquired in this study, and those databases could be used in conjunction with this study's data to make national estimates of population parameters of interest.
In addition, the crash investigations will be conducted on-scene, while the involved operators and vehicles are still in place. This provides access to physical data that is less disturbed by rescue and clean up activities. It also facilitates the collection of interview data while memories are unaffected. This quick-response approach is most
While the occurrence of a crash involving a motorcycle in the study site is sufficient for it to be selected into the study, selecting the similarly-at-risk controls is not as straightforward. The OECD recommends several options for acquiring matched controls including interviewing motorcyclists who may be filling up at nearby gas stations, taking videos of motorcyclists who pass the crash scenes, and interviewing motorcyclists at the location of the crash location at the same time of day, same day of week, and same direction of travel. The first of these methods suffers from the shortcoming that a rider or motorist filling his fuel tank is not presented with the same risks, in the same setting, as is the crash-involved rider and motorist. To illustrate, consider a motorcycle rider who is hit from the rear by a passenger vehicle motorist on a Friday night at 1 a.m. There is a reasonable chance that alcohol is involved in this crash, but to estimate the relative risk it will not help to measure the BAC of passenger vehicle motorists (and motorcyclists) at a nearby gas station. Passenger-vehicle motorists and motorcyclists will need to be sampled at the location of the crash on the same day of the week, at the same hour, and from the same travel direction. Even if the suspected risk factor is not alcohol, but some other variable (
Using the second method mentioned above, acquiring the risk sample by taking video at the crash scenes provides a similarly-at-risk pool, and it also allows for many controls to be acquired at low cost. Its chief disadvantage is that it does not allow capture of some of the key risk factors for crashes (
The final method, the voluntary safety research interview, involves setting up a safety zone at the crash location, one week later at the same time of day, and asking those drivers and motorcyclists who pass through to volunteer in a study. With this method, Certificates of Confidentiality are presented to each interviewed driver and rider and immunity is provided from arrest. The main advantage of this method is that the key variables that are thought to affect relative crash risk can be acquired from drivers and riders who are truly similarly-at-risk. A final decision on the means of acquiring control data has not been made.
The OECD protocol includes the following number of variables for each aspect of the investigation:
Note that multiple copies of various data forms will be completed as the data on each crash-involved vehicle and person and each control vehicle and person are acquired. This increases the number of variables above the sum of what is presented above. There are also diagrams and photographs that are essential elements of each investigation that are entered into the database. In prior OECD implementations, about 2,000 data elements in total were recorded for each crash.
Maximum total crashes to be investigated is 1200.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; correction.
The FMCSA published a notice in the
Mr. James R. Dubose, Commercial Enforcement Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
In the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is to advise interested persons that PHMSA will conduct a public meeting to discuss Special Permit and Approval applicant fitness determinations. PHMSA will hold a public meeting on August 19, 2010, in Washington, DC, to provide interested persons with an opportunity to submit oral comments and participate in discussions concerning the criteria used when determining an applicant's minimum level of fitness.
Mr. Arthur Pollack, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4512 and
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has the primary responsibility for the issuance of DOT Special Permits and Approvals to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). A Special Permit is a document which authorizes a person to perform a function that is not currently authorized under the authority of the HMR. In addition, some activities under the HMR are only authorized when approved by PHMSA. Approvals are required when classifying explosives, fireworks, organic peroxides, and self-reactive materials. Approvals are also required for certain package design types and for persons performing certain activities requiring approval
Under 49 CFR 107.709(d) PHMSA may only grant an approval after determining that an applicant is fit to conduct the activity authorized by the approval, or renewal or modification of approval. PHMSA may determine an applicant's fitness through the information provided in the application, the applicant's prior compliance history, or other information that is available to the Associate Administrator. The first step in evaluating an application, regardless of the approval type, is to conduct an initial level of fitness review. PHMSA uses the Hazmat Intelligence Portal (HIP) and Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) in determining an applicants' initial fitness.
The Hazmat Intelligence Portal (HIP) provides an integrated information source to identify hazardous material safety trends through the analysis of incident and accident information. This information repository supports all transportation modes, data analysts, field inspectors, and team leaders. HIP includes several hazardous materials data points (
FMCSA's SAFER System provides company safety data and related services to the industry and public. SAFER's Company Snapshot is an electronic record of a carrier's identification, size commodity information, and safety records, including the safety rating (if any), a roadside out-of-service inspection summary, and crash information. SAFER is publicly searchable and can be found at:
The following criteria are currently used by PHMSA when determining minimum level of fitness. Applicants that fall below the following criteria are considered fit. Applicants that meet one or more of the following criteria require further review by Field Operations.
* Note that if the Applicant has been inspected less than ten times or the Applicant has only one out-of-service, the data should not be considered statistical significant and the Applicant will not be considered in need of further review.
The August 19, 2010 meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the aspects of the Minimum Level of Fitness Determination criteria. During this meeting, PHMSA is soliciting comments relative to the use of HIP and SAFER data, applicability of the data, criteria used in determining an applicant's minimum level of fitness, potential alternative sources of fitness data, and other appropriate matters.
Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
Iraq is not included in this list, but its status with respect to future lists remains under review by the Department of the Treasury.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning final regulation, REG-155608-02, Revised Regulations Concerning Section 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuity Contracts.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing proposed regulation, REG-149524-03, (NPRM) LIFO Recapture Under Section 1363(d).
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing proposed regulation, REG-138176-02 (NPRM), Timely Mailing Treated As Timely Filing.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2007-46 (NOT-146367-06), Guidance Regarding Heavy Hybrid Vehicles.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of notice should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 89-102, Treatment of Acquisition of Certain Financial Institutions; Tax Consequences of Federal Financial Assistance.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final notice of proposed rulemaking, REG-208985-89, Taxable Year of Certain Foreign Corporations Beginning After July 10, 1989 (Sec. Sec. 1.563-3, 1.898-3, and 1.898-4).
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking and temporary regulation, REG-209274-85 (TD 8033) Tax Exempt Entity Leasing (§ 1.168).
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Forms 943, Employer's Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees, 943-PR, Planilla Para La Declarcion Anual De La Contribucion Federal Del Patrono De Empleados Agricolas, 943-A, Agricultural Employer's Record of Federal Tax Liability, and 943A-PR, Registro De La Obligacion Contributiva Del Patrono Agricola.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 98-32, Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) Programs for Reporting Agents.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Announcement 2004-43, Election of Alternative Deficit Reduction Contribution.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the announcement should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 945, Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax; Form 945-A, Annual Record of Federal Tax Liability; and Form 945-V, Form 945 Payment Voucher.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 6627, Environmental Taxes.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 6524, Office of Chief Counsel— Application.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, INTL-29-91 (TD 8556), Computation and Characterization of Income and Earnings and Profits under the Dollar Approximate Separate Transactions Method of Accounting (DASTM) (§ 1.985-3).
Written comments should be received on or before
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8819, Dollar Election Under Section 985.
Written comments should be received on or before September 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The proposed information collection request (ICR) described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OTS is soliciting public comments on the proposal.
Submit written comments on or before August 30, 2010. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, can be obtained from RegInfo.gov at
Send comments, referring to the collection by title of the proposal or by OMB approval number, to OMB and OTS at these addresses: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for OTS, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 - 17th Street, NW., Room 10235,
For further information or to obtain a copy of the submission to OMB, please contact Ira L. Mills at
OTS may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and respondents are not required to respond to an information collection, unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. As part of the approval process, we invite comments on the following information collection.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift Supervision has duly appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as sole Receiver for Woodlands Bank, Bluffton, South Carolina (OTS No. 08464), as of July 16, 2010.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; supplemental.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is proposing to establish the 2010-11 early-season hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the maximum number of birds that may be taken and possessed in early seasons. Early seasons may open as early as September 1, and include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of specific final seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. This proposed rule also provides the final regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 duck hunting seasons.
You must submit comments on the proposed early-season frameworks by August 9, 2010. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for late-season migratory bird hunting and the 2011 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence seasons in Alaska on July 28 and 29, 2010. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m. Following later
You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
The SRC will meet in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA.
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714.
On May 13, 2010, we published in the
Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
On June 10, 2010, we published in the
This document, the third in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations, deals specifically with proposed frameworks for early-season regulations and the regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 duck hunting seasons. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the 2010-11 season.
We have considered all pertinent comments received through June 30, 2010, on the May 13 and June 10, 2010, rulemaking documents in developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain early-season regulations are provided for public comment. Comment periods are specified above under
Participants at the June 23-24, 2010, meetings reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 2010-11 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.
Participants at the previously announced July 28-29, 2010, meetings
The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of migratory shore and upland game birds excerpted from various reports. For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated under
Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate the conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and ground crews and encompass principal breeding areas of North America, covering an area over 2.0 million square miles. The traditional survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and the northcentral United States, and includes approximately 1.3 million square miles. The eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, New York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million square miles.
Overall, habitat conditions during the 2010 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey were characterized by average to below-average moisture and a mild winter and early spring across the entire traditional (including the northern locations) and eastern survey areas. The total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and U.S. combined) was 6.7 ± 0.2 million. This was similar to the 2009 estimate and 34 percent above the long-term average of 5.0 ± 0.03 million ponds.
Conditions across the Canadian prairies were similar to 2009. Portions of southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba improved, but a large area along the Alberta and Saskatchewan border remained dry, and moisture levels in portions of Manitoba declined from last year. The 2010 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 3.7 ± 0.2 million. This was similar to last year's estimate (3.6 ± 0.1 million) and to the 1955-2009 average (3.4 ± 0.03 million). Residual water remains in the Parklands and these were classified as fair to good. Most of the Prairie-Parkland region of Canada received abundant to historically high levels of precipitation during and after the survey, which, while possibly flooding some nests, will produce excellent brood-rearing habitat for successful nesters and lessen the summer drawdown, leading to beneficial wetland conditions next spring.
Wetland numbers and conditions remained fair to good in the eastern U.S. prairies, but habitat conditions declined through the western Dakotas and Montana. The 2010 pond estimate for the north-central United States was 2.9 ± 0.1 million, which was similar to last year's estimate (2.9 ± 0.1 million) and 87 percent above the long-term average (1.6 ± 0.02 million). Fall and winter precipitation in the eastern Dakotas generally improved good habitat conditions already present. However, wetlands in the western Dakotas and Montana were not recharged, resulting in a deterioration of conditions from 2009 at the time the survey was conducted.
In the bush regions of the traditional survey area, spring breakup was early. Unlike in 2009, the majority of habitats were ice-free for arriving waterfowl. Habitat of most of the bush region, with the exception of Alaska and the Northwest Territories, was classified as fair due to below-average moisture, but the early spring should benefit waterfowl across the entire area.
The boreal forest and Canadian Maritimes of the eastern survey area experienced an early spring as well. Much of southern Quebec and Ontario were classified as poor to fair due to dry conditions, with the exception of an area of adequate moisture in west-central Ontario. More northern boreal forest locations benefited from near-normal precipitation and early ice-free conditions. Although winter precipitation from southwestern Ontario along the St. Lawrence River Valley and into Maine was below average, waterfowl habitat was classified as good to excellent, as in 2009. The James and Hudson Bay Lowlands of Ontario (strata 57-59) were not surveyed in 2010, but reports indicated an early spring in these locations as well.
The estimate of blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area is 6.3 million. This represents a 14.0 percent decrease from 2009 and is 36 percent above the 1955-2009 average.
Compared to increases recorded in the 1970s, annual indices to abundance of the Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of sandhill cranes have been relatively stable since the early 1980s. The spring 2010 index for sandhill cranes in the Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska, uncorrected for visibility bias, was 451,024 birds. The photo-corrected, 3-year average for 2007-09 was 498,420, which is above the established population-objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes.
All Central Flyway States, except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting in portions of their States during 2009-10. An estimated 7,394 hunters participated in these seasons, which was 23 percent lower than the number that participated in the previous season. Hunters harvested 15,282 MCP cranes in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway during the 2009-10 seasons, which was 34 percent lower than the estimated harvest for the previous year but 6 percent higher than the long-term average. The retrieved harvest of MCP cranes in hunt areas outside of the Central Flyway (Arizona, Pacific Flyway portion of New Mexico, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico combined) was 7,304 during 2009-10. The preliminary estimate for the North American MCP sport harvest, including crippling losses, was 25,731 birds, which was a 39 percent decrease from the previous year's estimate. The long-term (1982-2008) trends for the MCP indicate that harvest has been increasing at a higher rate than population growth.
The fall 2008 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) resulted in a count of 20,321 cranes. The 3-year average was 21,433 sandhill cranes, which is above the established population objective of 17,000-21,000 for the RMP. Hunting seasons during 2009-10 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming resulted in a record-high harvest of 1,392 RMP cranes, a 49 percent increase from the harvest of 936 in 2008-09.
The Lower Colorado River Valley Population (LCRVP) survey results indicate a slight decrease from 2,401
Singing-ground and Wing-collection Surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the American woodcock (
Wing-collection Survey data indicate that the 2009 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 9 percent lower than the 2008 index, and 12 percent lower than the long-term average. The recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.2 immatures per adult female) was 20 percent lower than the 2008 index and 26 percent below the long-term average.
Two subspecies of band-tailed pigeon occur north of Mexico and they are managed as two separate populations in the United States: The Interior Population and the Pacific Population. Information on the abundance and harvest of band-tailed pigeons is collected annually in the western United States and British Columbia. Abundance information comes from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and, for the Pacific Population, the BBS and the Pacific Coast Mineral Site Survey. Annual counts of Interior band-tailed pigeons seen and heard per route declined since implementation of the BBS in 1966. Over the past 10 years indices have declined, but the evidence of a trend for this time period is weak. The 2009 harvest of Interior band-tailed pigeons was estimated to be 5,000 birds. BBS counts of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons seen and heard per route have also declined since 1966, as well as over the past 10 years; however, the credible interval for the more recent trend estimate includes zero. According to the Pacific Coast Mineral Site Survey, annual counts of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons seen at mineral sites have decreased since the survey became operational in 2004, but credible intervals include zero. The 2009 estimate of harvest for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons was 22,600 birds.
For the first time, in 2010, Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS) data is being analyzed within a Bayesian hierarchical modeling framework, consistent with analysis methods for other long-term point count surveys such as the American Woodcock Singing-ground Survey and the North American Breeding Bird Survey. According to the analysis of the CCS, counts of mourning doves heard over the most recent 10 years (2001-10) increased in the Eastern Management Unit. There was no trend in mourning doves heard for the Central or Western Management Units. Over the 45-year period, 1966-2010, the number of mourning doves heard per route decreased in all three dove management units. The number of doves seen per route was also collected during the CCS. For the past 10 years, there was no trend in doves seen for the Central and Western Management Units; however, there is evidence of an increasing trend in the Eastern Management Unit. Over 45 years, there was no evidence of a trend in doves seen in the Central Management Unit; however, a positive trend is indicated for the Eastern Management Unit and a declining trend is indicated for the Western Management Unit. The preliminary 2009 harvest estimate for the United States was 17,354,800 mourning doves.
Two States harbor substantial populations of white-winged dove population: Arizona and Texas. California and New Mexico have much smaller populations. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has monitored white-winged dove populations by means of a CCS to provide an annual index to population size. It runs concurrently with the Service's Mourning Dove CCS. The index of mean number of white-winged doves heard per route from this survey peaked at 52.3 in 1968, but then declined until about 2000. The index has stabilized at around 25 doves per route in the last few years; in 2010, the mean number of doves heard per route was 23.6. Arizona Game and Fish also historically monitored white-wing dove harvest. Harvest of white-winged doves in Arizona peaked in the late 1960s at approximately 740,000 birds and has since declined and stabilized at around 100,000 birds; the preliminary 2009 Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP) estimate of harvest was 124,500 birds.
In Texas, white-winged doves continue to expand their breeding range. Nesting by whitewings has been recorded in most counties, except for the northeastern part of the State. Nesting is essentially confined to urban areas, but appears to be expanding to exurban areas. Concomitant with this range expansion has been a continuing increase in white-wing dove abundance. A new distance-based sampling protocol was implemented for Central and South Texas in 2007, and has been expanded each year. In 2010, approximately 4,000 points were surveyed Statewide. Current year's survey data are being analyzed and abundance estimates will be available later this summer. The estimated harvest of white-wings in Texas in the 2008-09 season was 1,259,300 birds. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department continues to work to improve the scientific basis for management of white-winged doves.
In California, available BBS data indicate an increasing trend in the population indices between 1968 and 2009. According to HIP surveys, the preliminary harvest estimate for 2009 was 66,100 white-winged doves in California. In New Mexico, available BBS data also indicate an increasing trend over the long term. In 2009, the estimated New Mexico harvest was 64,500 white-winged doves.
White-tipped doves occur primarily south of the United States-Mexico border; however, the species does occur in Texas. Monitoring information is presently limited. White-tipped doves are believed to be maintaining a relatively stable population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Distance-based sampling procedures implemented in Texas are also providing limited information on white-tipped dove abundance. Texas is working to improve the sampling frame to include the rural Rio Grande corridor in order to improve the utility of population indices. Annual estimates for white-tipped dove harvest in Texas average between 3,000 and 4,000 birds.
The preliminary proposed rulemaking (May 13
We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are summarized below. We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items in the May 13
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season lengths, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published issues/discussions, and only those containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
As we previously stated regarding incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM process (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008), this proposal was addressed by the AHM Task Force of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) in its report and recommendations. As there is no consensus on behalf of the Flyway Councils on how to modify the regulatory alternatives, we believe that the new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program (
We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways during the 2010-11 season after survey information becomes available later this summer. More information on AHM is located at
The Mississippi Flyway Council's request to include an assessment of potential teal harvest opportunities for production States in the ongoing teal assessment, and the additional work associated with this request, would likely delay the completion of our original task. As we noted above, the original purpose of this assessment was to assess the harvest potential of the three teal species. The Council's request would entail not only an evaluation of the potential effects of production States' teal harvest on those species, but the possibility of impacts to non-target species as well. However, we understand the production States' concern about teal harvest opportunities. Therefore, we will compile information and analyses from historic reports that address teal seasons and, particularly, issues related to duck harvests from production and non-production States, and provide them to the Flyways for consideration during the upcoming summer flyway meetings. The intent of this review would be to summarize historical analyses and dialogue regarding the issue of early-season teal harvest opportunities in production States and provide a common understanding of the issues that would have to be reconsidered to fully address the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation. With this information, the Flyways could more fully assess how they may want to approach teal harvest opportunities for their States in the future, following
Regarding the regulations for this year, utilizing the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy, this year's estimate of 6.3 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area indicates that a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways is appropriate for 2010.
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended use of the Draft Strategy's harvest management Alternatives 39, 29, or 39(b) to develop an optimal harvest policy. The Council remains concerned regarding the following: (1) The Service does not provide performance metrics for harvest management Alternatives 39 and 39(b) with no closed seasons until the pintail BPOP falls to 1.0 million birds; (2) the method for integrating the preferred alternatives from other Flyways into a single harvest policy is not defined and reviewed; (3) additional weighting exercises that address more fundamental harvest objectives, such as simplified regulations, maintaining/expanding hunting opportunity for pintails, and maximizing harvest, have not yet been conducted; and (4) there is uncertainty about the consistency of the harvest strategy for pintails with the fundamental objectives addressed through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) revision.
The Central Flyway Council recommended continued discussions on the potential structure and use of a derived harvest strategy for pintails. They recommend a one-year implementation of Alternative 39 in the Draft Strategy until a number of issues are resolved.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that harvest management for pintails be based on a derived strategy that: (1) Uses MSY as a harvest objective; (2) constrains closed seasons to breeding populations below 1.75 million birds; and (3) eliminates partial seasons (shorter pintail seasons within a longer general duck season). Specifically, the Council recommended Alternative 39 as its preferred strategy for regulations in 2010-11 and further review for the next year. The Council supported a derived strategy that does not have an explicit allocation of harvest among the flyways. The Council also recommended that Alaska's exclusion from the pintail harvest management process be continued.
The Council further recommended the use of historic proportions of harvest to weight the inputs from the Flyways should that input differ in the future. They noted that we proposed to consider inputs from all flyways equally, but the absolute and relative abundance of pintail is highest in the Pacific Flyway, and regulatory alternatives have a different effect there. They continued to support more work on alternative underlying population models because they do not believe that the model set in the strategy includes a model that addresses the effect of harvest regulation changes on pintail survival rates in a manner similar to ultra-structural models. The Council has recommended in the past that we investigate the usefulness of sex-specific regulations for pintails as a way to increase hunting opportunity on male pintails.
Lastly, the Council recognized that all of the analyzed strategies predict the perpetuation of the pintail breeding population between 2.78 and 3.57 million pintails, but that the differences among the strategies center largely on effects on the hunting public. These effects include the frequency of closed and partial seasons, larger daily bag limits, and annual regulation changes. The Council has limited information on hunter preferences about the tradeoffs inherent in the analyzed derived strategies.
Based on the considerable amount of time and effort the Flyway Councils have devoted to reaching a consensus on the derived strategy for this year, and the fact that all four Flyway Councils deemed Alternative 39 as the best balance tradeoff among fundamental objectives identified for pintail harvest management, we concur with their recommendations and will adopt Alternative 39 for the 2010-11 regulations year. Alternative 39 stipulates a closed pintail season if the pintail breeding population falls below 1.75 million and limits the daily bag limits to 0, 1, or 2 under the “liberal” AHM regulatory package.
We also understand that a good deal of new information became available to the Flyways relatively late in this year's process. Therefore, we encourage each Flyway to review their choice of alternatives during the coming year and advise all of the other Flyways and the Service if their review suggests that a different alternative harvest strategy would better address the conservation needs of pintails and the desires of the hunting public. Over the coming year, we will review this choice of Alternative 39 based on one year of experience, as well as input received from the Councils, public, and Service technical staff, to determine if a different alternative will better insure the long-term conservation of northern pintails and meet the interests of the hunting public. Changes, if warranted, would be implemented for the 2011-12 regulations cycle.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that we increase the daily bag limit framework from 5 to 8 for the
We also agree with the Central Flyway Council's request to increase the Canada goose daily bag limit in South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The Special Early Canada Goose hunting season is generally designed to reduce or control overabundant resident Canada geese populations. Increasing the daily bag limit from 5 to 10 may help these States reduce or control existing high populations of resident Canada geese.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommend using the 2010 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of 1,979 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 2007-09 3-year running average.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended initiating a limited hunt for Lower Colorado River Valley Population (LCRVP) of sandhill cranes in Arizona with a goal of a limited harvest of 9 cranes during the 2010-11 hunting season. Arizona will issue permits to hunters and require mandatory check-in of all harvested cranes. The Service previously approved the hunt in 2007.
We also agree with the Councils' recommendations on the RMP sandhill crane harvest allocation of 1,939 birds for the 2010-11 season, as outlined in the RMP sandhill crane management plan's harvest allocation formula. The objective for the RMP sandhill crane is to manage for a stable population index of 17,000-21,000 cranes determined by an average of the three most recent, reliable September (fall pre-migration) surveys. While this year's survey counted 20,321 birds, a decrease from the previous year's count of 21,156 birds, the 3-year average for the RMP sandhill crane fall index is 21,433.
Regarding the proposed limited hunt for LCRVP cranes in the Arizona hunt, in 2007, the Pacific Flyway Council recommended, and we approved, the establishment of a limited hunt for the LCRVP sandhill cranes in Arizona (72 FR 49622, August 28, 2007). However, the population inventory on which the LCRVP hunt plan is based was not completed that year. Thus, the Arizona Game and Fish Department chose to not conduct the hunt in 2007 and sought approval from the Service again in 2008 to begin conducting the hunt. We again approved the limited hunt (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008). However, due to complications encountered with the proposed onset of this new season falling within ongoing efforts to open new hunting seasons on federal National Wildlife Refuges, the experimental limited hunt season was not opened in 2008. As such, last year the State of Arizona requested that 2009-12 be designated as the new experimental season and designated an area under State control where the experimental hunt will be conducted. Given that the LCRVP survey results indicate an increase from 1,900 birds in 1998 to 2,264 birds in 2009, and that the 3-year average of 2,847 LCRVP cranes is above the population objective of 2,500, we continue to support the establishment of the 3-year experimental framework for this hunt, conditional on successful monitoring being conducted as called for in the Flyway hunt plan for this population. Our final environmental assessment (FEA) on this new hunt can be obtained by writing Robert Trost, Pacific Flyway Representative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
The Central Flyway Council recommended that the interim harvest strategy outlined in the Draft American Woodcock Harvest Strategy be implemented for a period of 5 years (2011-15).
The working group's draft interim harvest strategy provides a transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock season length and bag limit while we work to improve monitoring and assessment protocols for this species. While the strategy's objective is to set woodcock harvest at a level commensurate with population, data limitations preclude accurately assessing harvest potential at this time. Thus, the strategy's thresholds for changing regulations are based on the premise that further population declines would result in decreased harvest, while population increases would allow for additional harvest. The working group recommended that the interim harvest strategy be implemented for the 2011-12 hunting season, that the Service and Flyway Councils evaluate the strategy after 5 years, and that we continue to assess the feasibility of developing a derived harvest strategy.
In the May 13
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the standard (or “moderate”) season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2010-11 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves, which represents no change from last year's frameworks.
This year, based on the interim harvest strategies and current population status, we agree with the recommended selection of the “moderate” season frameworks for doves in the Eastern, Central, and Western Management Units.
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preambles of any final rules.
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published a notice of availability in the
In a notice published in the September 8, 2005,
Before issuance of the 2010-11 migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of the Act may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. OMB bases its determination of regulatory significance 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.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (
The regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 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 feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. We solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2010-11 migratory bird hunting season in the May 13
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703
These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2010-11 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following proposed frameworks, which prescribe season lengths, bag limits, shooting hours, and outside dates within which States may select hunting seasons for certain migratory game birds between September 1, 2010, and March 10, 2011. These frameworks are summarized below.
Dates: All outside dates noted below are inclusive.
Shooting and Hawking (taking by falconry) Hours: Unless otherwise specified, from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset daily.
Possession Limits: Unless otherwise specified, possession limits are twice the daily bag limit.
Atlantic Flyway—includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Mississippi Flyway—includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
Central Flyway—includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation),
Pacific Flyway—includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.
Eastern Management Unit—All States east of the Mississippi River, and Louisiana.
Central Management Unit—Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
Western Management Unit—Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Eastern Management Region—Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Central Management Region—Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Other geographic descriptions are contained in a later portion of this document.
In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, where Sunday hunting is prohibited Statewide by State law, all Sundays are closed to all take of migratory waterfowl (including mergansers and coots).
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and September 30, an open season on all species of teal may be selected by the following States in areas delineated by State regulations:
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 16 consecutive hunting days in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. The daily bag limit is 4 teal.
Shooting Hours:
Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee: In lieu of a special September teal season, a 5-consecutive-day season may be selected in September. The daily bag limit may not exceed 4 teal and wood ducks in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be wood ducks.
Iowa: Iowa may hold up to 5 days of its regular duck hunting season in September. All ducks that are legal during the regular duck season may be taken during the September segment of the season. The September season segment may commence no earlier than the Saturday nearest September 20 (September 18). The daily bag and possession limits will be the same as those in effect last year but are subject to change during the late-season regulations process. The remainder of the regular duck season may not begin before October 10.
Outside Dates: States may select 2 consecutive days (hunting days in Atlantic Flyway States with compensatory days) per duck-hunting zone, designated as “Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days,” in addition to their regular duck seasons. The days must be held outside any regular duck season on a weekend, holidays, or other non-school days when youth hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate. The days may be held up to 14 days before or after any regular duck-season frameworks or within any split of a regular duck season, or within any other open season on migratory birds.
Daily Bag Limits: The daily bag limits may include ducks, geese, mergansers, coots, moorhens, and gallinules and would be the same as those allowed in the regular season. Flyway species and area restrictions would remain in effect.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
Participation Restrictions: Youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger. In addition, an adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth hunter into the field. This adult may not duck hunt but may participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth day.
Outside Dates: Between September 15 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 107 days, with a daily bag limit of 7, singly or in the aggregate, of the listed sea-duck species, of which no more than 4 may be scoters.
Daily Bag Limits During the Regular Duck Season: Within the special sea duck areas, during the regular duck season in the Atlantic Flyway, States may choose to allow the above sea duck limits in addition to the limits applying to other ducks during the regular duck season. In all other areas, sea ducks may be taken only during the regular open season for ducks and are part of the regular duck season daily bag (not to exceed 4 scoters) and possession limits.
Areas: In all coastal waters and all waters of rivers and streams seaward from the first upstream bridge in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York; in any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any tidal waters of any bay which are separated by at least 1 mile of open water from any shore, island, and emergent vegetation in New Jersey, South Carolina, and Georgia; and in any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any tidal waters of any bay which are separated by at least 800 yards of open water from any shore, island, and emergent vegetation in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia; and provided that any such areas have been described, delineated, and designated as special sea-duck hunting areas under the hunting regulations adopted by the respective States.
Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected
Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 15 Canada geese.
Canada goose seasons of up to 10 days during September 16-25 may be selected in Delaware. The daily bag limit may not exceed 15 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during any general season, shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected, except in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, where the season may not extend beyond September 10, and in Minnesota, where a season of up to 22 days during September 1-22 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
A Canada goose season of up to 10 consecutive days during September 1-10 may be selected by Michigan for Huron, Saginaw, and Tuscola Counties, except that the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, Shiawassee River State Game Area Refuge, and the Fish Point Wildlife Area Refuge will remain closed. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
In Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas, Canada goose seasons of up to 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected. In Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese, except in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, where the bag limit may not exceed 8 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
California may select a 9-day season in Humboldt County during the period September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 2.
Colorado may select a 9-day season during the period of September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 3.
Oregon may select a special Canada goose season of up to 15 days during the period September 1-15. In addition, in the NW Goose Management Zone in Oregon, a 15-day season may be selected during the period September 1-20. Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Idaho may select a 7-day season during the period September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 2 and the possession limit is 4.
Washington may select a special Canada goose season of up to 15 days during the period September 1-15. Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Wyoming may select an 8-day season on Canada geese during the period September 1-15. This season is subject to the following conditions:
1. Where applicable, the season must be concurrent with the September portion of the sandhill crane season.
2. A daily bag limit of 2, with season and possession limits of 4, will apply to the special season.
Areas open to hunting of Canada geese in each State must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Regular goose seasons may open as early as September 16 in Wisconsin and Michigan. Season lengths, bag and possession limits, and other provisions will be established during the late-season regulations process.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28.
Hunting Seasons: A season not to exceed 37 consecutive days may be selected in the designated portion of northwestern Minnesota (Northwest Goose Zone).
Daily Bag Limit: 2 sandhill cranes.
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28.
Hunting Seasons: Seasons not to exceed 37 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of North Dakota (Area 2) and Texas (Area 2). Seasons not to exceed 58 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of the following States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Seasons not to exceed 93 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of the following States: New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Daily Bag Limits: 3 sandhill cranes, except 2 sandhill cranes in designated portions of North Dakota (Area 2) and Texas (Area 2).
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming may select seasons for hunting sandhill cranes within the range of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) subject to the following conditions:
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: The season in any State or zone may not exceed 30 days.
Bag limits: Not to exceed 3 daily and 9 per season.
Permits: Participants must have a valid permit, issued by the appropriate State, in their possession while hunting.
Other provisions: Numbers of permits, open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons must be consistent with the management plan and approved by the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils, with the following exceptions:
1. In Utah, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota;
2. In Arizona, monitoring the racial composition of the harvest must be conducted at 3-year intervals;
3. In Idaho, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota; and
4. In New Mexico, the season in the Estancia Valley is experimental, with a requirement to monitor the level and racial composition of the harvest; greater sandhill cranes in the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota.
Special Seasons in the Pacific Flyway:
Arizona may select a season for hunting sandhill cranes within the range of the Lower Colorado River Population (LCR) of sandhill cranes, subject to the following conditions:
Outside Dates: Between December 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: The season may not exceed 3 days.
Bag limits: Not to exceed 1 daily and 1 per season.
Permits: Participants must have a valid permit, issued by the appropriate State, in their possession while hunting.
Other provisions: The season is experimental. Numbers of permits, open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons must be consistent with the management plan and approved by the Pacific Flyway Council.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and the last Sunday in January (January 30) in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. States in the Pacific Flyway have been allowed to select their hunting seasons between the outside dates for the season on ducks; therefore, they are late-season frameworks, and no frameworks are provided in this document.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Seasons may not exceed 70 days in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. Seasons may be split into 2 segments. The daily bag limit is 15 common moorhens and purple gallinules, singly or in the aggregate of the two species.
Zoning: Seasons may be selected by zones established for duck hunting.
Outside Dates: States included herein may select seasons between September 1 and the last Sunday in January (January 30) on clapper, king, sora, and Virginia rails.
Hunting Seasons: Seasons may not exceed 70 days, and may be split into 2 segments.
Daily Bag Limits:
Clapper and King Rails—In Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, 10, singly or in the aggregate of the 2 species. In Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, 15, singly or in the aggregate of the two species.
Sora and Virginia Rails—In the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways and the Pacific-Flyway portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, 25 daily and 25 in possession, singly or in the aggregate of the two species. The season is closed in the remainder of the Pacific Flyway.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28, except in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, where the season must end no later than January 31.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Seasons may not exceed 107 days and may be split into two segments. The daily bag limit is 8 snipe.
Zoning: Seasons may be selected by zones established for duck hunting.
Outside Dates: States in the Eastern Management Region may select hunting seasons between October 1 and January 31. States in the Central Management Region may select hunting seasons between the Saturday nearest September 22 (September 25) and January 31.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Seasons may not exceed 30 days in the Eastern Region and 45 days in the Central Region. The daily bag limit is 3. Seasons may be split into two segments.
Zoning: New Jersey may select seasons in each of two zones. The season in each zone may not exceed 24 days.
Outside Dates: Between September 15 and January 1.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 9 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 2 band-tailed pigeons.
Zoning: California may select hunting seasons not to exceed 9 consecutive days in each of two zones. The season in the North Zone must close by October 3.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and November 30.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 30 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 5 band-tailed pigeons.
Zoning: New Mexico may select hunting seasons not to exceed 20 consecutive days in each of two zones. The season in the South Zone may not open until October 1.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 15, except as otherwise provided, States may select hunting seasons and daily bag limits as follows:
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 70 days, with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Zoning and Split Seasons: States may select hunting seasons in each of two zones. The season within each zone may be split into not more than three periods. Regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within specific hunting zones.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 70 days, with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Zoning and Split Seasons:
States may select hunting seasons in each of two zones. The season within each zone may be split into not more than three periods.
Texas may select hunting seasons for each of three zones subject to the following conditions:
A. The hunting season may be split into not more than two periods, except in that portion of Texas in which the special white-winged dove season is allowed, where a limited mourning dove season may be held concurrently with that special season (
B. A season may be selected for the North and Central Zones between September 1 and January 25; and for the South Zone between the Friday nearest September 20 (September 17), but not earlier than September 17, and January 25.
C. Daily bag limits are aggregate bag limits with mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves (
D. Except as noted above, regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within each hunting zone.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits:
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington—Not more than 30 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 10 mourning doves.
Utah—Not more than 30 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit that may not exceed 10 mourning doves and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Nevada—Not more than 30 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 10 mourning doves, except in Clark and Nye Counties, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Arizona and California—Not more than 60 days, which may be split between two periods, September 1-15 and November 1-January 15. In Arizona, during the first segment of the season, the daily bag limit is 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 6 may be white-winged doves. During the remainder of the season, the daily bag limit is 10 mourning doves. In California, the daily bag limit is 10 mourning doves, except in Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits:
Except as shown below, seasons must be concurrent with mourning dove seasons.
Eastern Management Unit: The daily bag limit may not exceed 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Central Management Unit:
In Texas, the daily bag limit may not exceed 15 mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be white-tipped doves. In addition, Texas also may select a hunting season of not more than 4 days for the special white-winged dove area of the South Zone between September 1 and September 19. The daily bag limit may not exceed 15 white-winged, mourning, and white-tipped doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 4 may be mourning doves and 2 may be white-tipped doves.
In the remainder of the Central Management Unit, the daily bag limit may not exceed 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Western Management Unit:
Arizona may select a hunting season of not more than 30 consecutive days, running concurrently with the first segment of the mourning dove season. The daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 6 may be white-winged doves.
In Utah, the Nevada Counties of Clark and Nye, and in the California Counties of Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino, the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
In the remainder of the Western Management Unit, the season is closed.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 26.
Hunting Seasons: Alaska may select 107 consecutive days for waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and common snipe in each of 5 zones. The season may be split without penalty in the Kodiak Zone. The seasons in each zone must be concurrent.
Closures: The hunting season is closed on emperor geese, spectacled eiders, and Steller's eiders.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits:
Ducks—Except as noted, a basic daily bag limit of 7 and a possession limit of 21 ducks. Daily bag and possession limits in the North Zone are 10 and 30, and in the Gulf Coast Zone, they are 8 and 24. The basic limits may include no more than 1 canvasback daily and 3 in possession and may not include sea ducks.
In addition to the basic duck limits, Alaska may select sea duck limits of 10 daily, 20 in possession, singly or in the aggregate, including no more than 6 each of either harlequin or long-tailed ducks. Sea ducks include scoters, common and king eiders, harlequin ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers.
Light Geese—A basic daily bag limit of 4 and a possession limit of 8.
Dark Geese—A basic daily bag limit of 4 and a possession limit of 8.
Dark-goose seasons are subject to the following exceptions:
1. In Units 5 and 6, the taking of Canada geese is permitted from September 28 through December 16.
2. On Middleton Island in Unit 6, a special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered. A mandatory goose identification class is required. Hunters must check in and check out. The bag limit is 1 daily and 1 in possession. The season will close if incidental harvest includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters.
3. In Units 6-B, 6-C and on Hinchinbrook and Hawkins Islands in Unit 6-D, a special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered. Hunters must have all harvested geese checked and classified to subspecies. The daily bag limit is 4 daily and 8 in possession. The Canada goose season will close in all of the permit areas if the total dusky goose (as defined above) harvest reaches 40.
4. In Units 9, 10, 17, and 18, dark goose limits are 6 per day, 12 in possession; however, no more than 2 may be Canada geese in Units 9(E) and 18; and no more than 4 may be Canada geese in Units 9(A-C), 10 (Unimak Island portion), and 17.
Brant—A daily bag limit of 2 and a possession limit of 4.
Common snipe—A daily bag limit of 8.
Sandhill cranes—Bag and possession limits of 2 and 4, respectively, in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, Kodiak, and Aleutian Zones, and Unit 17 in the Northern Zone. In the remainder of the Northern Zone (outside Unit 17), bag and possession limits of 3 and 6, respectively.
Tundra Swans—Open seasons for tundra swans may be selected subject to the following conditions:
1. All seasons are by registration permit only.
2. All season framework dates are September 1-October 31.
3. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 17, no more than 200 permits may be issued during this operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit, with no more than 1 permit issued per hunter per season.
4. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 18, no more than 500 permits may be issued during the operational season. Up to 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
5. In GMU 22, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. Each permittee may be authorized to take up to 3 tundra swans per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
6. In GMU 23, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit, with no more than 1 permit issued per hunter per season.
Outside Dates: Between October 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 65 days (75 under the alternative) for mourning doves.
Bag Limits: Not to exceed 15 (12 under the alternative) mourning doves.
Mourning doves may be taken in Hawaii in accordance with shooting hours and other regulations set by the State of Hawaii, and subject to the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 20.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 15.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 60 days.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not to exceed 20 Zenaida, mourning, and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which not more than 10 may be Zenaida doves and 3 may be mourning doves. Not to exceed 5 scaly-naped pigeons.
Closed Seasons: The season is closed on the white-crowned pigeon and the plain pigeon, which are protected by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Closed Areas: There is no open season on doves or pigeons in the following areas: Municipality of Culebra, Desecheo Island, Mona Island, El Verde Closure Area, and Cidra Municipality and adjacent areas.
Outside Dates: Between October 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 55 days may be selected for hunting ducks, common moorhens, and common snipe. The season may be split into two segments.
Daily Bag Limits:
Ducks—Not to exceed 6.
Common moorhens—Not to exceed 6.
Common snipe—Not to exceed 8.
Closed Seasons: The season is closed on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked pintail, West Indian whistling duck, fulvous whistling duck, and masked duck, which are protected by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The season also is closed on the purple gallinule, American coot, and Caribbean coot.
Closed Areas: There is no open season on ducks, common moorhens, and common snipe in the Municipality of Culebra and on Desecheo Island.
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 15.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 60 days for Zenaida doves.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not to exceed 10 Zenaida doves.
Closed Seasons: No open season is prescribed for ground or quail doves, or pigeons in the Virgin Islands.
Closed Areas: There is no open season for migratory game birds on Ruth Cay (just south of St. Croix).
Local Names for Certain Birds: Zenaida dove, also known as mountain dove; bridled quail-dove, also known as Barbary dove or partridge; Common ground-dove, also known as stone dove, tobacco dove, rola, or tortolita; scaly-naped pigeon, also known as red-necked or scaled pigeon.
Outside Dates: Between December 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: Not more than 55 consecutive days.
Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 6.
Closed Seasons: The season is closed on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked pintail, West Indian whistling duck, fulvous whistling duck, and masked duck.
Falconry is a permitted means of taking migratory game birds in any State meeting Federal falconry standards in 50 CFR 21.29. These States may select an extended season for taking migratory game birds in accordance with the following:
Extended Seasons: For all hunting methods combined, the combined length of the extended season, regular season, and any special or experimental seasons must not exceed 107 days for any species or group of species in a geographical area. Each extended season may be divided into a maximum of 3 segments.
Framework Dates: Seasons must fall between September 1 and March 10.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Falconry daily bag and possession limits for all permitted migratory game birds must not exceed 3 and 6 birds, respectively, singly or in the aggregate, during extended falconry seasons, any special or experimental seasons, and regular hunting seasons in all States, including those that do not select an extended falconry season.
Regular Seasons: General hunting regulations, including seasons and hunting hours, apply to falconry in each State listed in 50 CFR 21.29. Regular-season bag and possession limits do not apply to falconry. The falconry bag limit is not in addition to gun limits.
South Zone—Baldwin, Barbour, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, and Mobile Counties.
North Zone—Remainder of the State.
White-winged Dove Open Areas—Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
Northwest Zone—The Counties of Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, Washington, Leon (except that portion north of U.S. 27 and east of State Road 155), Jefferson (south of U.S. 27, west of State Road 59 and north of U.S. 98), and Wakulla (except that portion south of U.S. 98 and east of the St. Marks River).
South Zone—Remainder of State.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the Texas border along State Highway 12 to U.S. Highway 190, east along U.S. 190 to Interstate Highway 12, east along Interstate 12 to Interstate Highway 10, then east along Interstate Highway 10 to the Mississippi border.
South Zone—The remainder of the State.
North Zone—That portion of the State north and west of a line extending west from the Alabama State line along U.S. Highway 84 to its junction with State Highway 35, then south along State Highway 35 to the Louisiana State line.
South Zone—The remainder of Mississippi.
White-winged Dove Open Areas—Clark and Nye Counties.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the Texas border along U.S. Highway 62 to Interstate 44, east along Oklahoma State Highway 7 to U.S. Highway 81, then south along U.S. Highway 81 to the Texas border at the Red River.
Southwest Zone—The remainder of Oklahoma.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Fort Hancock; north along FM 1088 to TX 20; west along TX 20 to TX 148; north along TX 148 to I-10 at Fort Hancock; east along I-10 to I-20; northeast along I-20 to I-30 at Fort Worth; northeast along I-30 to the Texas-Arkansas State line.
South Zone—That portion of the State south and west of a line beginning at the
Special White-winged Dove Area in the South Zone—That portion of the State south and west of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Del Rio, proceeding east on U.S. 90 to State Loop 1604 west of San Antonio, southeast on State Loop 1604 to Interstate Highway 35, southwest on Interstate Highway 35 to TX 44; east along TX 44 to TX 16 at Freer; south along TX 16 to FM 649 in Randado; south on FM 649 to FM 2686; east on FM 2686 to FM 1017; southeast on FM 1017 to TX 186 at Linn; east along TX 186 to the Mansfield Channel at Port Mansfield; east along the Mansfield Channel to the Gulf of Mexico.
Area with additional restrictions—Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties.
Central Zone—That portion of the State lying between the North and South Zones.
North Zone—Alpine, Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties.
South Zone—The remainder of the State.
North Zone—North of a line following U.S. 60 from the Arizona State line east to I-25 at Socorro and then south along I-25 from Socorro to the Texas State line.
South Zone—Remainder of the State.
Western Washington—The State of Washington excluding those portions lying east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River in Klickitat County.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of NJ 70.
South Zone—The remainder of the State.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of I-95.
South Zone—Remainder of the State.
Eastern Unit—Calvert, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Harford, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties; and that part of Anne Arundel County east of Interstate 895, Interstate 97 and Route 3; that part of Prince George's County east of Route 3 and Route 301; and that part of Charles County east of Route 301 to the Virginia State line.
Western Unit—Allegany, Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Howard, Montgomery, and Washington Counties and that part of Anne Arundel County west of Interstate 895, Interstate 97 and Route 3; that part of Prince George's County west of Route 3 and Route 301; and that part of Charles County west of Route 301 to the Virginia State line.
Western Zone—That portion of the State west of a line extending south from the Vermont border on I-91 to MA 9, west on MA 9 to MA 10, south on MA 10 to U.S. 202, south on U.S. 202 to the Connecticut border.
Central Zone—That portion of the State east of the Berkshire Zone and west of a line extending south from the New Hampshire border on I-95 to U.S. 1, south on U.S. 1 to I-93, south on I-93 to MA 3, south on MA 3 to U.S. 6, west on U.S. 6 to MA 28, west on MA 28 to I-195, west to the Rhode Island border; except the waters, and the lands 150 yards inland from the high-water mark, of the Assonet River upstream to the MA 24 bridge, and the Taunton River upstream to the Center St.-Elm St. bridge will be in the Coastal Zone.
Coastal Zone—That portion of Massachusetts east and south of the Central Zone.
Lake Champlain Zone—The U.S. portion of Lake Champlain and that area east and north of a line extending along NY 9B from the Canadian border to U.S. 9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west shore of South Bay, along and around the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on the east shore of South Bay; southeast along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along U.S. 4 to the Vermont border.
Long Island Zone—That area consisting of Nassau County, Suffolk County, that area of Westchester County southeast of I-95, and their tidal waters.
Western Zone—That area west of a line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, and south along I-81 to the Pennsylvania border.
Northeastern Zone—That area north of a line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, south along I-81 to NY 49, east along NY 49 to NY 365, east along NY 365 to NY 28, east along NY 28 to NY 29, east along NY 29 to I-87, north along I-87 to U.S. 9 (at Exit 20), north along U.S. 9 to NY 149, east along NY 149 to U.S. 4, north along U.S. 4 to the Vermont border, exclusive of the Lake Champlain Zone.
Southeastern Zone—The remaining portion of New York.
Northeast Hunt Unit—Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties; that portion of Bertie County north and east of a line formed by NC 45 at the Washington County line to US 17 in Midway, US 17 in Midway to US 13 in Windsor to the Hertford County line; and that portion of Northampton County that is north of US 158 and east of NC 35.
SJBP Zone: The area north of I-80 and west of I-79, including in the city of Erie west of Bay Front Parkway to and including the Lake Erie Duck Zone (Lake Erie, Presque Isle, and the area within 150 yards of the Lake Erie Shoreline).
Lake Champlain Zone: The U.S. portion of Lake Champlain and that area north and west of the line extending from the New York border along U.S. 4 to VT 22A at Fair Haven; VT 22A to U.S. 7 at Vergennes; U.S. 7 to the Canadian border.
Interior Zone: That portion of Vermont west of the Lake Champlain Zone and eastward of a line extending from the Massachusetts border at Interstate 91; north along Interstate 91 to US 2; east along US 2 to VT 102; north along VT 102 to VT 253; north along VT 253 to the Canadian border.
Connecticut River Zone: The remaining portion of Vermont east of the Interior Zone.
Early Canada Goose Area: Baxter, Benton, Boone, Carroll, Clark, Conway, Crawford, Faulkner, Franklin, Garland, Hempstead, Hot Springs, Howard, Johnson, Lafayette, Little River, Logan, Madison, Marion, Miller, Montgomery, Newton, Perry, Pike, Polk, Pope, Pulaski, Saline, Searcy, Sebastian, Sevier, Scott, Van Buren, Washington, and Yell Counties.
Northeast Canada Goose Zone—Cook, Du Page, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.
North Zone: That portion of the State outside the Northeast Canada Goose Zone and north of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Peotone-Beecher Road to Illinois Route 50, south along Illinois Route 50 to Wilmington-Peotone Road, west along Wilmington-Peotone Road to Illinois Route 53, north along Illinois Route 53 to New River Road, northwest along New River Road to Interstate Highway 55, south along I-55 to Pine Bluff-Lorenzo Road, west along Pine Bluff-Lorenzo Road to Illinois Route 47, north along Illinois Route 47 to I-80, west along I-80 to I-39, south along I-39 to Illinois Route 18, west along Illinois Route 18 to Illinois Route 29, south along Illinois Route 29 to Illinois Route 17, west along Illinois Route 17 to the Mississippi River, and due south across the Mississippi River to the Iowa border.
Central Zone: That portion of the State outside the Northeast Canada Goose Zone and south of the North Zone to a line extending west from the Indiana border along Interstate Highway 70 to Illinois Route 4, south along Illinois Route 4 to Illinois Route 161, west along Illinois Route 161 to Illinois Route 158, south and west along Illinois Route 158 to Illinois Route 159, south along Illinois Route 159 to Illinois Route 156, west along Illinois Route 156 to A Road, north and west on A Road to Levee Road, north on Levee Road to the south shore of New Fountain Creek, west along the south shore of New Fountain Creek to the Mississippi River, and due west across the Mississippi River to the Missouri border.
South Zone: The remainder of Illinois.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of U.S. Highway 20.
South Zone: The remainder of Iowa.
Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Goose Zone: Includes portions of Linn and Johnson Counties bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west border of Linn County and Linn County Road E2W; then south and east along County Road E2W to Highway 920; then north along Highway 920 to County Road E16; then east along County Road E16 to County Road W58; then south along County Road W58 to County Road E34; then east along County Road E34 to Highway 13; then south along Highway 13 to Highway 30; then east along Highway 30 to Highway 1; then south along Highway 1 to Morse Road in Johnson County; then east along Morse Road to Wapsi Avenue; then south along Wapsi Avenue to Lower West Branch Road; then west along Lower West Branch Road to Taft Avenue; then south along Taft Avenue to County Road F62; then west along County Road F62 to Kansas Avenue; then north along Kansas Avenue to Black Diamond Road; then west on Black Diamond Road to Jasper Avenue; then north along Jasper Avenue to Rohert Road; then west along Rohert Road to Ivy Avenue; then north along Ivy Avenue to 340th Street; then west along 340th Street to Half Moon Avenue; then north along Half Moon Avenue to Highway 6; then west along Highway 6 to Echo Avenue; then north along Echo Avenue to 250th Street; then east on 250th Street to Green Castle Avenue; then north along Green Castle Avenue to County Road F12; then west along County Road F12 to County Road W30; then north along County Road W30 to Highway 151; then north along the Linn-Benton County line to the point of beginning.
Des Moines Goose Zone: Includes those portions of Polk, Warren, Madison and Dallas Counties bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of Northwest 158th Avenue and County Road R38 in Polk County; then south along R38 to Northwest 142nd Avenue; then east along Northwest 142nd Avenue to Northeast 126th Avenue; then east along Northeast 126th Avenue to Northeast 46th Street; then south along Northeast 46th Street to Highway 931; then east along Highway 931 to Northeast 80th Street; then south along Northeast 80th Street to Southeast 6th Avenue; then west along Southeast 6th Avenue to Highway 65; then south and west along Highway 65 to Highway 69 in Warren County; then south along Highway 69 to County Road G24; then west along County Road G24 to Highway 28; then southwest along Highway 28 to 43rd Avenue; then north along 43rd Avenue to Ford Street; then west along Ford Street to Filmore Street; then west along Filmore Street to 10th Avenue; then south along 10th Avenue to 155th Street in Madison County; then west along 155th Street to Cumming Road; then north along Cumming Road to Badger Creek Avenue; then north along Badger Creek Avenue to County Road F90 in Dallas County; then east along County Road F90 to County Road R22; then north along County Road R22 to Highway 44; then east along Highway 44 to County Road R30; then north along County Road R30 to County Road F31; then east along County Road F31 to Highway 17; then north along Highway 17 to Highway 415 in Polk County; then east along Highway 415 to Northwest 158th Avenue; then east along Northwest 158th Avenue to the point of beginning.
Cedar Falls/Waterloo Goose Zone: Includes those portions of Black Hawk County bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of County Roads C66 and V49 in Black Hawk County, then south along County Road V49 to County Road D38, then west along County Road D38 to State Highway 21, then south along State Highway 21 to County Road D35, then west along County Road D35 to Grundy Road, then north along Grundy Road to County Road D19, then west along County Road D19 to Butler Road, then north along Butler Road to County Road C57, then north and east along County Road C57 to U.S. Highway 63, then south along U.S. Highway 63 to County Road C66, then east along County Road C66 to the point of beginning.
Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Zone—
A. All of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.
B. In Anoka County, all of Columbus Township lying south of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18, Anoka County; all of the cities of Ramsey, Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids, Spring Lake Park, Fridley, Hilltop, Columbia Heights, Blaine, Lexington, Circle Pines, Lino Lakes, and Centerville; and all of the city of Ham Lake except that portion lying north of CSAH 18 and east of U.S. Highway 65.
C. That part of Carver County lying north and east of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of San Francisco Township; then west along the north boundary of San Francisco Township to the east boundary of Dahlgren Township; then north along the east boundary of Dahlgren Township to U.S. Highway 212; then west along U.S. Highway 212 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 284; then north on STH 284 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 10; then north and west on CSAH 10 to CSAH 30; then north and west on CSAH 30 to STH 25; then east and north on STH 25 to CSAH 10; then north on CSAH 10 to the Carver County line.
D. In Scott County, all of the cities of Shakopee, Savage, Prior Lake, and Jordan, and all of the Townships of Jackson, Louisville, St. Lawrence, Sand Creek, Spring Lake, and Credit River.
E. In Dakota County, all of the cities of Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota, Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove Heights, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount, Farmington, Hastings,
F. That portion of Washington County lying south of the following described line: Beginning at County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 on the west boundary of the county; then east on CSAH 2 to U.S. Highway 61; then south on U.S. Highway 61 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 97; then east on STH 97 to the intersection of STH 97 and STH 95; then due east to the east boundary of the State.
Northwest Goose Zone—That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the North Dakota border along U.S. Highway 2 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 54 in Marshall County, north along CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west along STH 11 to STH 310, and north along STH 310 to the Manitoba border.
Southeast Goose Zone—That part of the State within the following described boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 52 and the south boundary of the Twin Cities Metro Canada Goose Zone; then along the U.S. Highway 52 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 57; then along STH 57 to the municipal boundary of Kasson; then along the municipal boundary of Kasson County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 13, Dodge County; then along CSAH 13 to STH 30; then along STH 30 to U.S. Highway 63; then along U.S. Highway 63 to the south boundary of the State; then along the south and east boundaries of the State to the south boundary of the Twin Cities Metro Canada Goose Zone; then along said boundary to the point of beginning.
Five Goose Zone—That portion of the State not included in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Zone, the Northwest Goose Zone, or the Southeast Goose Zone.
West Zone—That portion of the State encompassed by a line beginning at the junction of State Trunk Highway (STH) 60 and the Iowa border, then north and east along STH 60 to U.S. Highway 71, north along U.S. 71 to I-94, then north and west along I-94 to the North Dakota border.
Middle Tennessee Zone—Those portions of Houston, Humphreys, Montgomery, Perry, and Wayne Counties east of State Highway 13; and Bedford, Cannon, Cheatham, Coffee, Davidson, Dickson, Franklin, Giles, Hickman, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Macon, Marshall, Maury, Moore, Robertson, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, Trousdale, Williamson, and Wilson Counties.
East Tennessee Zone—Anderson, Bledsoe, Bradley, Blount, Campbell, Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Cumberland, DeKalb, Fentress, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, McMinn, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, Sullivan, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washington, and White Counties.
Early-Season Subzone A—That portion of the State encompassed by a line beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 141 and the Michigan border near Niagara, then south along U.S. 141 to State Highway 22, west and southwest along State 22 to U.S. 45, south along U.S. 45 to State 22, west and south along State 22 to State 110, south along State 110 to U.S. 10, south along U.S. 10 to State 49, south along State 49 to State 23, west along State 23 to State 73, south along State 73 to State 60, west along State 60 to State 23, south along State 23 to State 11, east along State 11 to State 78, then south along State 78 to the Illinois border.
Early-Season Subzone B—The remainder of the State.
September Canada Goose Unit—That part of Nebraska bounded by a line from the Nebraska-Iowa State line west on U.S. Highway 30 to US Highway 81, then south on US Highway 81 to NE Highway 64, then east on NE Highway 64 to NE Highway 15, then south on NE Highway 15 to NE Highway 41, then east on NE Highway 41 to NE Highway 50, then north on NE Highway 50 to NE Highway 2, then east on NE Highway 2 to the Nebraska-Iowa State line.
Missouri River Canada Goose Zone: The area within and bounded by a line starting where ND Hwy 6 crosses the South Dakota border; then north on ND Hwy 6 to I-94; then west on I-94 to ND Hwy 49; then north on ND Hwy 49 to ND Hwy 200; then north on Mercer County Rd. 21 to the section line between sections 8 and 9 (T146N-R87W); then north on that section line to the southern shoreline to Lake Sakakawea; then east along the southern shoreline (including Mallard Island) of Lake Sakakawea to US Hwy 83; then south on US Hwy 83 to ND Hwy 200; then east on ND Hwy 200 to ND Hwy 41; then south on ND Hwy 41 to US Hwy 83; then south on US Hwy 83 to I-94; then east on I-94 to US Hwy 83; then south on US Hwy 83 to the South Dakota border; then west along the South Dakota border to ND Hwy 6.
Rest of State: Remainder of North Dakota.
Special Early Canada Goose Unit: Entire state of South Dakota
East Zone—Bonneville, Caribou, Fremont, and Teton Counties.
Northwest Zone—Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Multnomah, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill Counties.
Southwest Zone—Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, and Klamath Counties.
East Zone—Baker, Gilliam, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, and Wasco Counties.
Area 1—Skagit, Island, and Snohomish Counties.
Area 2A (SW Quota Zone)—Clark County, except portions south of the Washougal River; Cowlitz County; and Wahkiakum County.
Area 2B (SW Quota Zone)—Pacific County.
Area 3—All areas west of the Pacific Crest Trail and west of the Big White Salmon River that are not included in Areas 1, 2A, and 2B.
Area 4—Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, Okanogan, Spokane, and Walla Walla Counties.
Area 5—All areas east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River that are not included in Area 4.
Lake Champlain Zone: The U.S. portion of Lake Champlain and that area east and north of a line extending along NY 9B from the Canadian border to U.S. 9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west shore of South Bay, along and around the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on the east shore of South Bay; southeast along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along U.S. 4 to the Vermont border.
Long Island Zone: That area consisting of Nassau County, Suffolk County, that area of Westchester County southeast of I-95, and their tidal waters.
Western Zone: That area west of a line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, and south along I-81 to the Pennsylvania border.
Northeastern Zone: That area north of a line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, south along I-81 to NY 49, east along NY 49 to NY 365, east along NY 365 to NY 28, east along NY 28 to NY 29, east along NY 29 to I-87, north along I-87 to U.S. 9 (at Exit 20), north along U.S. 9 to NY 149, east along NY 149 to U.S. 4, north along U.S. 4 to the Vermont border, exclusive of the Lake Champlain Zone.
Southeastern Zone: The remaining portion of New York.
Special Teal Season Area: Calvert, Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties and those parts of Cecil. Harford, and Baltimore Counties east of Interstate 95; that part of Anne Arundel County east of Interstate 895, Interstate 97, and Route 3; that part of Prince Georges County east of Route 3 and route 301; and that part of Charles County east of Route 301 to the Virginia State Line.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the Illinois border along State Road 18 to U.S. Highway 31, north along U.S. 31 to U.S. 24, east along U.S. 24 to Huntington, then southeast along U.S. 224 to the Ohio border.
Ohio River Zone: That portion of the State south of a line extending east from the Illinois border along Interstate Highway 64 to New Albany, east along State Road 62 to State 56, east along State 56 to Vevay, east and north on State 156 along the Ohio River to North Landing, north along State 56 to U.S. Highway 50, then northeast along U.S. 50 to the Ohio border.
South Zone: That portion of the State between the North and Ohio River Zone boundaries.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of a line extending east from the Nebraska border along State Highway 175 to State Highway 37, southeast along State Highway 37 to State Highway 183, northeast along State Highway 183 to State Highway 141, east along State Highway 141 to U.S. Highway 30, then east along U.S. Highway 30 to the Illinois border.
South Zone: The remainder of Iowa.
Special Teal Season Area: Lake and Chaffee Counties and that portion of the State east of Interstate Highway 25.
High Plains Zone: That portion of the State west of U.S. 283.
Low Plains Early Zone: That area of Kansas east of U.S. 283, and generally west of a line beginning at the Junction of the Nebraska State line and KS 28; south on KS 28 to U.S. 36; east on U.S. 36 to KS 199; south on KS 199 to Republic Co. Road 563; south on Republic Co. Road 563 to KS 148; east on KS 148 to Republic Co. Road 138; south on Republic Co. Road 138 to Cloud Co. Road 765; south on Cloud Co. Road 765 to KS 9; west on KS 9 to U.S. 24; west on U.S. 24 to U.S. 281; north on U.S. 281 to U.S. 36; west on U.S. 36 to U.S. 183; south on U.S. 183 to U.S. 24; west on U.S. 24 to KS 18; southeast on KS 18 to U.S. 183; south on U.S. 183 to KS 4; east on KS 4 to I-135; south on I-135 to KS 61; southwest on KS 61 to KS 96; northwest on KS 96 to U.S. 56; west on U.S. 56 to U.S. 281; south on U.S. 281 to U.S. 54; west on U.S. 54 to U.S. 183; north on U.S. 183 to U.S. 56; and southwest on U.S. 56 to U.S. 283.
Low Plains Late Zone: The remainder of Kansas.
Special Teal Season Area: That portion of the State south of a line beginning at the Wyoming State line; east along U.S. 26 to Nebraska Highway L62A east to U.S. 385; south to U.S. 26; east to NE 92; east along NE 92 to NE 61; south along NE 61 to U.S. 30; east along U.S. 30 to the Iowa border.
North Zone: That portion of the State north of I-40 and U.S. 54.
South Zone: The remainder of New Mexico.
Northeastern Zone: In that portion of California lying east and north of a line beginning at the intersection of Interstate 5 with the California-Oregon line; south along Interstate 5 to its junction with Walters Lane south of the town of Yreka; west along Walters Lane to its junction with Easy Street; south along Easy Street to the junction with Old Highway 99; south along Old Highway 99 to the point of intersection with Interstate 5 north of the town of Weed; south along Interstate 5 to its junction with Highway 89; east and south along Highway 89 to Main Street Greenville; north and east to its junction with North Valley Road; south to its junction of Diamond Mountain Road; north and east to its junction with North Arm Road; south and west to the junction of North Valley Road; south to the junction with Arlington Road (A22); west to the junction of Highway 89; south and west to the junction of Highway 70; east on Highway 70 to Highway 395; south and east on Highway 395 to the point of intersection with the California-Nevada State line; north along the California-Nevada State line to the junction of the California-Nevada-Oregon State lines west along the California-Oregon State line to the point of origin.
Colorado River Zone: Those portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties east of a line extending from the Nevada border south along U.S. 95 to Vidal Junction; south on a road known as “Aqueduct Road” in San Bernardino County through the town of Rice to the San Bernardino-Riverside County line; south on a road known in Riverside County as the “Desert Center to Rice Road” to the town of Desert Center; east 31 miles on I-10 to the Wiley Well Road; south on this road to Wiley Well; southeast along the Army-Milpitas Road to the Blythe, Brawley, Davis Lake intersections; south on the Blythe-Brawley paved road to the Ogilby and Tumco Mine Road; south on this road to U.S. 80; east 7 miles on U.S. 80 to the Andrade-Algodones Road; south on this paved road to the Mexican border at Algodones, Mexico.
Southern Zone: That portion of southern California (but excluding the Colorado River Zone) south and east of a line extending from the Pacific Ocean east along the Santa Maria River to CA
Southern San Joaquin Valley Temporary Zone: All of Kings and Tulare Counties and that portion of Kern County north of the Southern Zone.
Balance-of-the-State Zone: The remainder of California not included in the Northeastern, Southern, and Colorado River Zones, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Temporary Zone.
MVP—Upper Peninsula Zone: The MVP—Upper Peninsula Zone consists of the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
MVP—Lower Peninsula Zone: The MVP—Lower Peninsula Zone consists of the area within the Lower Peninsula of Michigan that is north and west of the point beginning at the southwest corner of Branch County, north continuing along the western border of Branch and Calhoun Counties to the northwest corner of Calhoun County, then east to the southwest corner of Eaton County, then north to the southern border of Ionia County, then east to the southwest corner of Clinton County, then north along the western border of Clinton County continuing north along the county border of Gratiot and Montcalm Counties to the southern border of Isabella county, then east to the southwest corner of Midland County, then north along the west Midland County border to Highway M-20, then easterly to U.S. Highway 10, then easterly to U.S. Interstate 75/U.S. Highway 23, then northerly along I-75/U.S. 23 and easterly on U.S. 23 to the centerline of the Au Gres River, then southerly along the centerline of the Au Gres River to Saginaw Bay, then on a line directly east 10 miles into Saginaw Bay, and from that point on a line directly northeast to the Canadian border.
SJBP Zone is the rest of the State, that area south and east of the boundary described above.
Northwest Goose Zone—That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the North Dakota border along U.S. Highway 2 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 54 in Marshall County, north along CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west along STH 11 to STH 310, and north along STH 310 to the Manitoba border.
Regular-Season Open Area—Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Eddy, Lea, Quay, and Roosevelt Counties.
Middle Rio Grande Valley Area—The Central Flyway portion of New Mexico in Socorro and Valencia Counties.
Estancia Valley Area—Those portions of Santa Fe, Torrance and Bernallilo Counties within an area bounded on the west by New Mexico Highway 55 beginning at Mountainair north to NM 337, north to NM 14, north to I-25; on the north by I-25 east to U.S. 285; on the east by U.S. 285 south to U.S. 60; and on the south by U.S. 60 from U.S. 285 west to NM 55 in Mountainair.
Southwest Zone—Sierra, Luna, Dona Ana Counties, and those portions of Grant and Hidalgo Counties south of I-10.
Area 1—That portion of the State west of U.S. 281.
Area 2—That portion of the State east of U.S. 281.
Zone A—That portion of Texas lying west of a line beginning at the international toll bridge at Laredo, then northeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with Interstate Highway 35 in Laredo, then north along Interstate Highway 35 to its junction with Interstate Highway 10 in San Antonio, then northwest along Interstate Highway 10 to its junction with U.S. Highway 83 at Junction, then north along U.S. Highway 83 to its junction with U.S. Highway 62, 16 miles north of Childress, then east along U.S. Highway 62 to the Texas-Oklahoma State line.
Zone B—That portion of Texas lying within boundaries beginning at the junction of U.S. Highway 81 and the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then southeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with U.S. Highway 287 in Montague County, then southeast along U.S. Highway 287 to its junction with Interstate Highway 35W in Fort Worth, then southwest along Interstate Highway 35 to its junction with Interstate Highway 10 in San Antonio, then northwest along Interstate Highway 10 to its junction with U.S. Highway 83 in the town of Junction, then north along U.S. Highway 83 to its junction with U.S. Highway 62, 16 miles north of Childress, then east along U.S. Highway 62 to the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then south along the Texas-Oklahoma State line to the south bank of the Red River, then eastward along the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River to U.S. Highway 81.
Zone C—The remainder of the State, except for the closed areas.
Closed areas—(A) That portion of the State lying east and north of a line beginning at the junction of U.S. Highway 81 and the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then southeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with U.S. Highway 287 in Montague County, then southeast along U.S. Highway 287 to its junction with Interstate Highway 35W in Fort Worth, then southwest along Interstate Highway 35 to its junction with U.S. Highway 290 East in Austin, then east along U.S. Highway 290 to its junction with Interstate Loop 610 in Harris County, then south and east along Interstate Loop 610 to its junction with Interstate Highway 45 in Houston, then south on Interstate Highway 45 to State Highway 342, then to the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and then north and east along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the Texas-Louisiana State line.
(B) That portion of the State lying within the boundaries of a line beginning at the Kleberg-Nueces County line and the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, then west along the County line to Park Road 22 in Nueces County, then north and west along Park Road 22 to its
Regular-Season Open Area—Campbell, Converse, Crook, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston Counties, and those portions of Johnson County east of Interstates 25 and 90 and Sheridan County east of Interstate 90.
Riverton-Boysen Unit—Portions of Fremont County.
Park and Big Horn County Unit—Portions of Park and Big Horn Counties.
Special-Season Area—Game Management Units 30A, 30B, 31, and 32.
Special-Season Area—
Special-Season Area—Rich, Cache, and Unitah Counties and that portion of Box Elder County beginning on the Utah-Idaho State line at the Box Elder-Cache County line; west on the State line to the Pocatello Valley County Road; south on the Pocatello Valley County Road to I-15; southeast on I-15 to SR-83; south on SR-83 to Lamp Junction; west and south on the Promontory Point County Road to the tip of Promontory Point; south from Promontory Point to the Box Elder-Weber County line; east on the Box Elder-Weber County line to the Box Elder-Cache County line; north on the Box Elder-Cache County line to the Utah-Idaho State line.
Bear River Area—That portion of Lincoln County described in State regulations.
Salt River Area—That portion of Lincoln County described in State regulations.
Farson-Eden Area—Those portions of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties described in State regulations.
Uinta County Area—That portion of Uinta County described in State regulations.
North Zone—State Game Management Units 11-13 and 17-26.
Gulf Coast Zone—State Game Management Units 5-7, 9, 14-16, and 10 (Unimak Island only).
Southeast Zone—State Game Management Units 1-4.
Pribilof and Aleutian Islands Zone—State Game Management Unit 10 (except Unimak Island).
Kodiak Zone—State Game Management Unit 8.
Ruth Cay Closure Area—The island of Ruth Cay, just south of St. Croix.
Municipality of Culebra Closure Area—All of the municipality of Culebra.
Desecheo Island Closure Area—All of Desecheo Island.
Mona Island Closure Area—All of Mona Island.
El Verde Closure Area—Those areas of the municipalities of Rio Grande and Loiza delineated as follows: (1) All lands between Routes 956 on the west and 186 on the east, from Route 3 on the north to the juncture of Routes 956 and 186 (Km 13.2) in the south; (2) all lands between Routes 186 and 966 from the juncture of 186 and 966 on the north, to the Caribbean National Forest Boundary on the south; (3) all lands lying west of Route 186 for 1 kilometer from the juncture of Routes 186 and 956 south to Km 6 on Route 186; (4) all lands within Km 14 and Km 6 on the west and the Caribbean National Forest Boundary on the east; and (5) all lands within the Caribbean National Forest Boundary whether private or public.
Cidra Municipality and adjacent areas—All of Cidra Municipality and portions of Aguas Buenas, Caguas, Cayey, and Comerio Municipalities as encompassed within the following boundary: Beginning on Highway 172 as it leaves the municipality of Cidra on the west edge, north to Highway 156, east on Highway 156 to Highway 1, south on Highway 1 to Highway 765, south on Highway 765 to Highway 763, south on Highway 763 to the Rio Guavate, west along Rio Guavate to Highway 1, southwest on Highway 1 to Highway 14, west on Highway 14 to Highway 729, north on Highway 729 to Cidra Municipality boundary to the point of the beginning.