Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Interim rule.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is revising Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program regulations that cover the privacy protections for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) households and applicants. The change is to comply with a new provision of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
The Food and Nutrition Service invites interested persons to submit comments on this interim rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments submitted in response to this interim rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the Internet via
Jane Duffield, 703-605-4385, at the above address.
FNS is revising Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations to clarify the legal basis and requirements for privacy protection provisions of section 4120 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), Public Law 110-246. This interim rule implements the requirement that SNAP State agencies provide sufficient information to local educational agencies (LEAs) in order for LEAs to directly certify children receiving SNAP benefits as eligible for free school lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and for free school breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 without further application.
Currently, 7 CFR 272.1(c) clarifies privacy protections afforded to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) applicants. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) continues to permit the disclosure of information from applicants or recipients to persons directly connected with the administration or enforcement of the SNAP, other Federal assistance programs, or Federally-assisted State programs. However, as a result of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Act now directs that the persons to whom State agencies release the information must assure that the information is used only for administration or enforcement of those programs. Accordingly, FNS is adding a clarifying provision to existing regulations at 7 CFR part 272.1(c)(1).
FNS has never interpreted the use and disclosure provision in the Act or the regulations to permit disclosure of information from applicant households to Program personnel for use outside the administration and enforcement of the program. Section 272.1(c) currently provides that recipients of information on SNAP applicant or recipient households must protect the information against unauthorized disclosure to persons or for purposes not specified in the regulations. Historically, our reviews and discussions with State agencies over information safeguards have found that State agencies have long understood that they must not allow the information to be used outside of the SNAP for purposes not permitted by the regulations, and State agencies have strived to protect the data from unauthorized disclosure or use. Based on that history, we do not anticipate that this rulemaking will require any change on the part of State agencies in how they protect information provided by SNAP applicants. Confidential information will continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration and enforcement.
The Act also provides that the safeguards on disclosure shall not prevent the sharing of information to ensure that any child receiving SNAP benefits be certified as eligible for free lunches under the provisions of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and free breakfasts under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, at schools without further application. The purpose of this provision is to make clear that applicants' information may be used to comply with requirements for certifying schoolchildren as eligible for free school meals based on their eligibility for SNAP benefits, and to ensure that existing requirements for safeguarding the released information and using it only for the purpose of certifying children for free school breakfast and lunches are observed. State agencies in the largest school districts have been operating under these rules since at least July 1, 2005, and in all school districts since July 2008. Therefore we are adding a clarifying provision to the regulations and do not anticipate that any new State action will be required.
USDA, under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds for good cause that use of prior notice and comment procedures for issuing this interim rule is unnecessary. This interim rule implements section 4120 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246 by codifying at 7 CFR Part 272.1(c)(1) the requirement that SNAP State agencies must assure that the disclosure and subsequent use of information of applicants and recipients of benefits be only for program administration and enforcement. USDA concludes that as implementation of section 4120 is nondiscretionary and specific, and as this rulemaking will not require any changes on the part of State agencies in how they protect information provided by SNAP applicants, it is unnecessary to issue this rule as a proposed rule. For the same reason, the interim rule is effective upon publication.
Although we do not anticipate this rule will be controversial, privacy issues are sensitive ones for some members of the public, and the opportunity to comment will be of value to a significant number of people, therefore, USDA invites public comment on this interim rule for a 60-day period. The agency will address comments, and affirm or amend the interim rule in a final rule.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As required for all rules that have been designated as significant by the OMB, a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was developed for this interim rule. It follows this rule as an Appendix. The following summarizes the conclusions of the regulatory impact analysis:
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. State and local welfare agencies will be the most affected to the extent that they administer the Program.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This interim rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and, Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. FNS has considered this rule's impact on State and local agencies and has determined that it does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section (6)(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
FNS has reviewed this interim rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify and address any major civil rights impact the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this rule has no impact on any of the protected classes. These changes affect the privacy of information collected from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applicants and households and not an individual applicant's or recipient's eligibility or participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. FNS has no discretion in implementing these changes. The changes are required to be implemented by law. All data available to FNS indicate that protected individuals have the same opportunity to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as non-protected individuals.
FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government agencies that administer the Program from engaging
This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with its provisions or that would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Dates paragraph of the rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this interim rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.
USDA will undertake, within 6 months after this rule becomes effective, a series of Tribal consultation sessions to gain input by elected Tribal officials or their designees concerning the impact of this rule on Tribal governments, communities, and individuals. These sessions will establish a baseline of consultation for future actions, should any be necessary, regarding this rule. Reports from these sessions for consultation will be made part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. USDA will respond in a timely and meaningful manner to all Tribal government requests for consultation concerning this rule and will provide additional venues, such as webinars and teleconferences, to periodically host collaborative conversations with Tribal leaders and their representatives concerning ways to improve this rule in Indian country.
The policies contained in this rule would not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; see 5 CFR part 1320) requires OMB to approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Food and Nutrition Service is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Section 4120 of Public Law 110-246, of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA) of 2008 amends Section 11(e)(8) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(8), to codify existing regulatory provisions. Currently, 7 CFR 272.1(c) clarifies privacy protections afforded to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) applicants. The Act continues to permit the disclosure of information from applicants or recipients to persons directly connected with the administration or enforcement of the SNAP, other Federal assistance programs, or Federally-assisted State programs. However, the Act, as amended, now directs that the persons to whom State agencies release the information must assure that the information is used only for administration or enforcement of those programs.
Alaska, Civil rights, Claims, SNAP, Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 272 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Local educational agencies administering the National School Lunch Program established under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the School Breakfast Program established under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, for the purpose of directly certifying the eligibility of school-aged children for receipt of free meals under the School Lunch and School Breakfast programs based on their receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
This appendix will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule.
The FDIC is adopting as final the Interim Final Rule published in the
The Final Rule incorporates, through cross references, changes in regulations adopted by the SEC into the provisions of the FDIC's securities regulations. Cross referencing will ensure that the FDIC's regulations remain substantially similar to the SEC's regulations, as required by law.
These amendments are effective on May 16, 2011.
Dennis Chapman, Senior Staff Accountant, Division of Risk Management Supervision, (202) 898-8922 or
Section 12(i) of the Exchange Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78l(i)), authorizes the FDIC to issue regulations applicable to the securities of state nonmember banks that are substantially similar to those of the SEC with respect to its powers, functions, and duties to administer and enforce sections 10A(m) (standards relating to audit committees), 12 (securities registration), 13 (periodic reporting), 14(a) (proxies and proxy solicitation), 14(c) (information statements), 14(d) (tender offers), 14(f) (arrangements for changes in directors), and 16 (beneficial ownership and reporting) of the Exchange Act, and sections 302 (corporate responsibility for financial reports), 303 (improper influence on conduct of audits), 304 (forfeiture of certain bonuses and profits), 306 (insider trades during blackout periods), 401(b) (disclosure of
In November 2010, the FDIC's Board of Directors authorized publication of an Interim Final Rule in the
Finally, the Interim Final Rule made certain nonsubstantive changes to part 335 to improve clarity and readability, and to correct outdated terms. The new part 335 cross referencing provisions are an efficient way to apply SEC Exchange Act rules to state nonmember banks that have securities registered pursuant to the Exchange Act. The part 335 cross referencing revisions will also minimize the need to amend part 335 each time the SEC revises its Exchange Act regulations resulting in amendments to a CFR section or subpart. The FDIC believes that cross referencing to the regulations of the SEC simplifies the administration and enforcement of the Exchange Act and also helps promote uniformity and consistency of administration.
The FDIC requested comments on all aspects of the rule changes, with comments due by January 31, 2011. Commenters were asked to support any suggestions that the FDIC modify the requirements of the SEC rules, regulations, and forms for state nonmember banks by demonstrating how such modification would satisfy the requirements of section 12(i) of the Exchange Act. The FDIC also welcomed comments on the general organization of Part 335. No comments were received on the Interim Final Rule.
As explained above, the FDIC requested comments on the Interim Final Rule that was issued on November 30, 2010, and received no comments during the comment period that ended on January 31, 2011. Accordingly, the FDIC is issuing the Final Rule with no modifications.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the FDIC found good cause to issue the Interim Final Rule without first seeking public comment. The Exchange Act requires that the FDIC issue regulations substantially similar to those of the SEC or publish its reasons for not doing so. Certain portions of Part 335 that are being amended are organizational; other portions result from the amendment or adoption of SEC Exchange Act regulations that were published with notice and opportunity for the public to comment. Nonetheless, the FDIC solicited public comment and received no comments on the Interim Final Rule. For these reasons, the FDIC confirms its finding that the good cause exception provided for in section 553(b)(B) of the APA applies to the Final Rule.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that the publication of a rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except “* * * (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” For reasons that supported its invocation of the good cause exception to section 553(b)(B) of the APA, the FDIC relied upon the good cause exception to section 553(d)(3) and published the Interim Final Rule with
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act provides that any new regulations or amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form, unless the agency determines, for good cause published with the rule, that the rule should become effective before such time.
The Final Rule contains no new collections of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a regulatory flexibility analysis is required only when the agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that the Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 801,
As required by SBREFA, the FDIC will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the General Accounting Office so that the Final Rule may be reviewed.
The FDIC has determined that the Final Rule will not affect family well-being within the measure of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (November 12, 1999), requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the revisions to Part 335 in a simple and straightforward manner. It requested comments on all aspects of the Interim Final Rule and received none.
Accounting, Banks, Banking, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 helicopters. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the aviation authority of Italy to identify and correct an unsafe condition related to the rescue hoist hook installed on this model helicopter. The aviation authority of Italy, with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI that a missing lock pin may cause the loss of the hoist hook and any load. The absence of the lock pin constitutes an unsafe condition, and this AD is intended to detect the presence of an identification plate marked “BT 412-124,” which indicates that the hook assembly has the lock pin installed to prevent the loss of a rescue hoist hook and its load.
This AD becomes effective on May 31, 2011.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 15, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may get the service information identified in this AD from Via Giovanni Agusta, 520 21017 Cascina Costa di Samarate (VA), Italy, telephone 39 0331-229111, fax 39 0331-229605/222595, or at
George Schwab, Aerospace Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5114; fax (817) 222-5961.
The Ente Nazionale Per L'Aviazione Civile (ENAC), which is the aviation authority for Italy, has issued Italian Airworthiness Directive No. 2008-62, dated February 19, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for these Italian-certificated helicopters. The MCAI states that a missing lock pin may cause the loss of the hoist hook and any load. The absence of the lock pin constitutes an unsafe condition, and this AD is intended to detect the presence of an identification plate marked “BT 412-124,” which indicates that the hook assembly has the lock pin installed to prevent the loss of a rescue hoist hook and its load.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and service information in the AD docket.
Agusta has issued Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-124, dated February 19, 2008, that describes performing a one-time inspection to verify the presence of a lock pin in the installed and spare hoist hook assemblies, returning the hoist hook assembly to Agusta if it is missing a lock pin, or installing a plate on the hoist showing compliance with the inspection if a lock pin is present. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the MCAI.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type design.
This AD differs from the MCAI as follows:
• We do not require inspecting spare part hook assemblies.
• We do not require a March 31, 2008 compliance time because that date has passed.
• We do not require returning a hook assembly in which there is no lock pin installed to the manufacturer.
These differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” section in the AD.
There are no costs of compliance since there are no helicopters of this type design on the U.S. Registry.
Since there are currently no affected U.S. registered helicopters, we have determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on May 31, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model AB412 helicopters, with rescue hoist assembly, part number (P/N) BL-10300-60 or P/N 412-8800-01-315 with a rescue hook assembly, P/N S6150-61090-1 or P/N 412-8800-05-101, installed, certificated in any category.
(d) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI) states that a missing lock pin may cause the loss of the hoist hook and any load. The absence of the lock pin constitutes an unsafe condition and this AD is intended to detect the absence of this lock pin to prevent the loss of a rescue hoist hook and its load.
(e) Before further flight, unless accomplished previously, inspect the rescue hoist hook assembly (hook assembly) for the presence of an attached identification plate marked “BT 412-124.”
(1) If this identification plate is installed on the hook assembly, no further action is required.
(2) If this identification plate is not installed on the hook assembly:
(i) Review the hook assembly maintenance records to determine if the hook assembly was manufactured after April 1, 2008. If so, no further action is required.
(ii) If the hook assembly date of manufacture is March 31, 2008, or earlier or if the date of manufacture cannot be determined, replace the hook assembly with an airworthy hook assembly that was either manufactured after April 2, 2008, or has an identification plate installed that is marked “BT 412-124.”
(f) This AD differs from the MCAI as follows:
(1) We do not require inspecting spare part hook assemblies.
(2) We do not require a March 31, 2008 compliance time because that date has passed.
(3) We do not require returning a hook assembly in which there is no lock pin installed to the manufacturer.
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: George Schwab, Aerospace Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5114; fax (817) 222-5961.
(h) Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Ente Nazionale Per L'Aviazone Civile (ENAC) Airworthiness Directive No. 2008-62, dated February 19, 2008, and Agusta Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-124, dated February 19, 2008, contain related information.
(i) The Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code is 2550, External Load Handling Equipment.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 16, 2011. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 16, 2011.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
For Examination—
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. It, therefore—(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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 16, 2011. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 16, 2011.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. It, therefore—(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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to establish a policy to address those who are unable to implement the exemption for intra-company, intra-organization, and intra-government transfers of defense articles and defense services by approved end-users to dual national and third-country nationals who are employees of such approved end-users. Prior to making transfers to certain dual national and third-country national employees under this policy, approved end-users must screen employees, make an affirmative decision to allow access, and maintain records of screening procedures to prevent diversion of ITAR-controlled technology for purposes other than those authorized by the applicable export license or other authorization.
Director Charles B. Shotwell, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, Telephone (202) 663-2792 or Fax (202) 261-8199; E-mail
This is part of the President's Export Control Reform effort. The Department of State is amending parts 124 and 126 of the ITAR to reflect new policy regarding end-user employment of dual nationals and third-country nationals.
As a part of the President's Task Force on Export Control Reform, the previous policy regarding the treatment of dual nationals and third-country nationals employed by approved end users was re-evaluated. A proposed rule to
The overwhelming majority of commenting parties expressed dissatisfaction with the current rule regarding dual and third-country nationals, citing conflicts with foreign human rights laws as well as the burden of compliance, and welcomed the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls' (DDTC) efforts to reform current practice. One commenting party asserted that the “
One commenting party recommended adding language to § 126.18(a) to make clear that the exemption applies “notwithstanding any other provisions of this Part” to make clear that the limitations of the last sentence of § 126.1(a), which would have conflicted with the intent of the proposed rule, did not apply. DDTC agreed and adopted this change.
One commenting party argued that the current nationality (or place of birth) standard should stay in place, citing recent prosecutions of Chi Mak, Greg Chung, and Noshir Gowadia. We note that all three cases involve naturalized U.S. citizens, whose prosecutions would not have been affected by the proposed rule. It should also be pointed out that
Another commenting party criticized the concept of “substantive contacts” in favor of clarifying the definition of “
One commenting party, a large U.S. aerospace firm, argued that DDTC should return to its
Ten commenting parties recommended that the exemption proposed in § 126.18 be expanded to include “
One commenting party asserted that there was uncertainty regarding whether the exemption applied to
Ten commenting parties recommended that the current
One foreign governmental commenting party observed that there is a need to expand the exemption beyond the physical territories of the governmental end-user or international organization. For example, such would be required to facilitate repair of a disabled aircraft overseas. This change was adopted subject to a requirement that such operations are in the conduct of official business by the government or international organization and provided such activities are within the scope of the license.
Nine commenting parties recommended the proposed rule apply to
Several commenting parties recommended clarification of the
Another commenting party expressed concern that any
One commenting party objected to the limitation of the exemption to the
One commenting party recommended that the requirement for screening not apply to
Several commenting parties recommended clarification of whether the proposed rule would apply to both
Several commenting parties expressed concern about the record-keeping requirements, especially where
The Department of State is of the opinion that restricting defense article exports is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from § 553 (Rulemaking) and § 554 (Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA, the Department published this rule with a 60-day provision for public comment and without prejudice to its determination that restricting defense article exports is a foreign affairs function.
Since this amendment is not subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This amendment does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This amendment has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
This amendment will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this amendment.
The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. The Department is of the opinion that restricting defense articles exports is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules governing the conduct of this function are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
The Department of State has considered this rule in light of Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.
The Department of State has reviewed the proposed amendment in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirement of Section 5 of Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.
The Department of State is of the opinion that this rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, but will provide a separate Federal Register notification regarding such requirements.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, parts 120, 124, and 126 are amended as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2794; E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; E.O. 13284, 68 FR 4075; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920.
(a) A regular employee means for purposes of this subchapter:
(1) An individual permanently and directly employed by the company, or
(2) An individual in a long term contractual relationship with the company where the individual works at the company's facilities, works under the company's direction and control, works full time and exclusively for the company, and executes nondisclosure certifications for the company, and where the staffing agency that has seconded the individual has no role in the work the individual performs (other than providing that individual for that work) and the staffing agency would not have access to any controlled technology (other than where specifically authorized by a license).
Sec. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2776; Pub. L. 105-261.
(5) The technical data or defense service exported from the United States in furtherance of this agreement and any defense article which may be produced or manufactured from such technical data or defense service may not be transferred to a foreign person except pursuant to §§ 124.16 and 126.18, as specifically authorized in this agreement, or where prior written approval of the Department of State has been obtained.
The provisions of § 124.8(5) of this subchapter notwithstanding, the Department may approve access to unclassified defense articles exported in furtherance of or produced as a result of a TAA/MLA, and retransfer of technical data and defense services to individuals who are dual national or third-country national employees of the foreign signatory or its approved sub-licensees, including the transfer to dual nationals or third-country nationals who are bona fide regular employees, directly employed by the foreign signatory or approved sub-licensees, provided they are nationals exclusively of countries that are members of NATO the European Union, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland and their employer is a signatory to the agreement or has executed a Non Disclosure Agreement. The retransfer must take place completely within the physical territories of these countries or the United States. Permanent retransfer of hardware is not authorized.
Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918; 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp. p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375.
(a) Subject to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, and where the exemption provided in § 124.16 cannot be implemented because of applicable domestic laws, no approval is needed from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) for the transfer of unclassified defense articles, which includes technical data (see § 120.6), to or within a foreign business entity, foreign governmental entity, or international organization that is an authorized end-user or consignee (including approved sub-licensees) for those defense articles, including the transfer to dual nationals or third-country nationals who are bona fide regular employees, directly employed by the foreign consignee or end-user. The transfer of defense articles pursuant to this section must take place completely within the physical territory of the country where the end-user is located, where the governmental entity or international organization conducts official business, or where the consignee operates, and be within the scope of an approved export license, other export authorization, or license exemption.
(b) The provisions of § 127.1(b) are applicable to any transfer under this section. As a condition of transferring to foreign person employees described in paragraph (a) of this section any defense article under this provision, any foreign business entity, foreign governmental entity, or international organization, as a “foreign person” within the meaning of § 120.16, that receives a defense article, must have effective procedures to prevent diversion to destinations, entities, or for purposes other than those authorized by the applicable export license or other authorization (e.g., written approval or exemption) in order to comply with the applicable
(c) The end-user or consignee may satisfy the condition in paragraph (b) of this section, prior to transferring defense articles, by requiring:
(1) A security clearance approved by the host nation government for its employees, or
(2) The end-user or consignee to have in place a process to screen its employees and to have executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement that provides assurances that the employee will not transfer any defense articles to persons or entities unless specifically authorized by the consignee or end-user. The end-user or consignee must screen its employees for substantive contacts with restricted or prohibited countries listed in § 126.1. Substantive contacts include regular travel to such countries, recent or continuing contact with agents, brokers, and nationals of such countries, continued demonstrated allegiance to such countries, maintenance of business relationships with persons from such countries, maintenance of a residence in such countries, receiving salary or other continuing monetary compensation from such countries, or acts otherwise indicating a risk of diversion. Although nationality does not, in and of itself, prohibit access to defense articles, an employee who has substantive contacts with persons from countries listed in § 126.1(a) shall be presumed to raise a risk of diversion, unless DDTC determines otherwise. End-users and consignees must maintain a technology security/clearance plan that includes procedures for screening employees for such substantive contacts and maintain records of such screening for five years. The technology security/clearance plan and screening records shall be made available to DDTC or its agents for civil and criminal law enforcement purposes upon request.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule revises BOEMRE regulations that pertain to noncompetitive acquisition of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) renewable energy lease. We are taking this action because under the current regulations the process for acquiring a lease noncompetitively that is initiated by an unsolicited request is inconsistent with the process for acquiring a lease noncompetitively that is initiated by BOEMRE. By revising regulations which govern the lease acquisition process starting with submission of an unsolicited request, and regulations which govern the lease acquisition process starting with BOEMRE issuance of a Request for Interest (RFI) or a Call for Information and Nomination (Call), this rulemaking will make the two processes consistent with each other.
Timothy Redding at (703) 787-1219.
As originally written, § 285.231 allowed the award of a noncompetitive lease after BOEMRE received an unsolicited request for a noncompetitive lease if BOEMRE determined that there was no competitive interest after publishing a single notice of a request for interest relating to the unsolicited request for a noncompetitive lease. As originally written, § 285.232 provided that if BOEMRE published an RFI or Call resulting in a single expression of interest in a discrete portion within the RFI or Call area, BOEMRE could offer a lease for that area through a noncompetitive process only if it also issued a notice of request for interest as required by § 285.231(b) and subsequently determined that there was no competitive interest based on responses to that notice.
BOEMRE believes that the requirement for another notice following an RFI or Call was redundant and was at odds with the noncompetitive process prescribed for cases in which a party submitted an unsolicited request for an OCS renewable energy lease, where BOEMRE is required to publish only a single notice. The final rule revises § 285.232(c) to refer to the process outlined in § 285.231(d) through (i) rather than § 285.231(b) through (i), thereby eliminating this discrepancy by requiring only one RFI notice for determining competitive interest in all cases. This will make BOEMRE's leasing processes more streamlined and efficient while maintaining BOEMRE's obligations to notify the public of areas that may be leased, to solicit public input regarding those areas, and to determine whether competitive interest exists in acquiring leases in those areas.
BOEMRE published a proposed rule on February 16, 2011 (76 FR 8962), and received a total of 76 comments.
The Offshore Wind Development Coalition, the National Hydropower Association, Offshore MW LLC, the American Wind Energy Association, and the National Wildlife Federation expressed support for revising the rule as proposed and endorsed BOEMRE's rationale for doing so.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (APNS) and the Oceans Public Trust Initiative (OPTI) objected to revising the rule and objected to BOEMRE's rationale. The APNS stated that the proposed rule would promote a land rush attitude, diminish competition, and marginalize public review by shortening the environmental review process for OCS wind developers. The OPTI stated that it appears that the sole purpose for revising the regulations appears to be to make leasing move more quickly, which could be at the expense of more careful and balanced review. The OPTI also stated that revising the rule as proposed promotes collusion among industry participants. Defenders of Wildlife did not explicitly offer an opinion in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rule revision. However, it stated that, “In proposing to arbitrarily set a new criteria for an expedited accelerated permitting process solely on the basis of the number of applicants for a lease at a particular location, BOEMRE appears to ignore in this rulemaking any and all parameters that make a particular location unique * * *.”
BOEMRE received 68 comments from private citizens, 3 that expressed
After reviewing the comments on the proposed rule, BOEMRE has concluded that there is no compelling reason not to promulgate the final rule. As we have maintained throughout this rulemaking, the revision of the regulations will eliminate inefficiency and provide consistency while preserving adequate opportunity for public notice and review in BOEMRE noncompetitive leasing processes. The final rule will have no effect on the environmental review process carried out pursuant to the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act. In response to concerns that the proposed rule will diminish competition, the final rule will have no effect on competition and is fully consistent with BOEMRE's obligations under subsection 8(p) of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, to offer OCS renewable energy leases on a competitive basis unless we determine, after public notice of a proposed lease, that there is no competitive interest. BOEMRE leasing processes under the renewable energy regulatory framework, as revised by this final rule, will continue to provide for thorough BOEMRE review of all relevant environmental and cultural criteria, as well as public participation. Consequently, we believe the final rule will have no effect whatsoever on potential collusion among offshore renewable energy developers.
This final rule is not a significant rule as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
(1) This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities.
(2) This final rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The final rule will eliminate unnecessary redundancy and inefficiency.
(3) This final rule will not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) This final rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the industries affected by this rule is 221119 (Other Electric Power Generation). The definition for this code is:
“This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating electric power generation facilities (except hydroelectric, fossil fuel, nuclear). These facilities convert other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, or tidal power, into electrical energy. The electric energy produced in these establishments is provided to electric power transmission systems or to electric power distribution systems.”
It is possible that this final rule could eventually affect entities that produce hydrogen and fall under NAICS Code 325120 (Industrial Gas Manufacturing). The definition for this code is:
“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing industrial organic and inorganic gases in compressed, liquid, or solid forms.”
Given the original findings of the regulatory flexibility analysis done for 30 CFR part 285, as well as the minor adjustment to the renewable energy leasing process that is accomplished, this final rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The requirements will apply indiscriminately to entities intending to acquire a renewable energy lease on the OCS pursuant to 30 CFR part 285.
This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The final rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. The final rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have federalism implications. This final rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State Governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this final rule will not affect that role. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
This final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this final rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this final rule and determined that it has no substantial effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes.
This final rulemaking does not contain new information collection requirements; therefore, an OMB submission under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. BOEMRE has analyzed this final rule under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Department's regulations implementing NEPA. This final rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in that this final rule is “* * * of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis * * *.” Further, BOEMRE has analyzed this final rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances that will require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215 and concluded that this final rule, being purely procedural, does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances.
In developing this final rule, BOEMRE did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).
This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Continental shelf, Environmental protection, Public lands.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) amends 30 CFR part 285 as follows:
43 U.S.C. 1331
(d) * * *
(1) We will publish in the
(c) After receiving the acquisition fee, BOEMRE will follow the process outlined in § 285.231(d) through (i).
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
In the
Lieutenant Jaewon Choi, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR Part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS MICHIGAN (SSBN 727) and USS Georgia (SSBN 729) are vessels of the Navy which, due to their special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with their special function as naval ships. The vessels have been converted from SSBN's to SSGN's and this amendment will edit the classification of the vessels to accurately reflect their new designation as SSGN's. This amendment does not change the vessels' previously noted deviations from 72 COLREGS. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on previous and unchanged technical findings that the placement of lights on these vessels in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions. Furthermore, this amendment merely changes the classification of these vessels and does not reflect any changes to the placement of lights on any of these vessels.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the CFR as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action approving a revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submitted revision consists of a maintenance plan for Sunland Park, New Mexico, developed to ensure continued attainment of the 1997 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) through the year 2014. The Maintenance Plan meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA's rules, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. EPA is approving the revision pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
This rule is effective on
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0502, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment:
New Mexico Environment Department, 1190 St. Francis Dr., Suite N4050, Santa Fe, NM 87505.
Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-7259; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address
Throughout this document, whenever “we” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Sunland Park area was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on June 12, 1995 and classified as “marginal.” The Sunland Park area is a portion of Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is approximately 42 square miles (sq. mi.) in area, and includes the communities of Sunland Park, Santa Teresa, and La Union. Sunland Park, La Union, and Santa Teresa are located along the border region of New Mexico and are adjacent to El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, or what is commonly referred to as the Paso del Norte Airshed. New Mexico submitted all the requirements for a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area classified as marginal, and EPA approved them into the New Mexico SIP on February 8, 2002. See 67 FR 6152. There are no outstanding obligations under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
The Sunland Park area has unique considerations for ozone planning due to airshed contributions from Mexico and Texas. Air quality within the Paso del Norte Airshed has improved over the last 10 years due to cooperative efforts between the State of Texas, the State of New Mexico, and Mexico through organizations such as the Paso Del Norte Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). Although the area has continued to monitor attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard the State chose not to submit a request for redesignation before EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
In 1997, EPA revised the ozone standard from a 1 hour form to one based on an 8 hour average. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858) and published the final Phase 1 rule for implementation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951). The Sunland Park area was designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2004 (see 69 FR 23858. The Phase I rule listed requirements for areas that were nonattainment for the 1 hour standard and attaining the 1997 8 hour standard under 51.905(a)(3). New Mexico was required to provide a 10 year maintenance plan for this 1997 8-hour ozone attainment area under section 110(a)(1) of the Act and the Phase 1 rule. (40 CFR 51.905(a)(3)(iii)).
On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance regarding how a state might fulfill the obligation established by the Act and the Phase 1 rule. (Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division Directors,
On May 7, 2007, New Mexico adopted and submitted to EPA a 1997 8-hour ozone standard maintenance plan for the Sunland Park area. This SIP revision satisfies the section 110(a)(1) CAA requirements for a plan that provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Sunland Park unclassifiable/attainment area.
In this action, EPA is approving the State's maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the area of Sunland Park because EPA finds that the New Mexico submittal meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, EPA's rule, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. As required, the plan provides for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the area for 10 years from the effective date of the area's designation as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and includes components illustrating how the area will continue in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and contingency measures. Our analysis of the State's submission is discussed below.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA does not explicitly state what is required for a maintenance plan, so the guidance suggested using CAA section 175A, which states the requirements for a maintenance plan, as a guide for states to use in developing their maintenance plans. The required components of a Maintenance Plan under CAA Section 175A include:
1. Attainment Inventory;
2. Maintenance Demonstration;
3. Monitoring Network;
4. Verification of Continued Attainment; and
5. Contingency Plan
The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) developed comprehensive inventories of VOC, CO, and NO
A practical reason for selecting 2002 as the base year emission inventory is that Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA and the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) require States to submit emissions inventories for all criteria pollutants and their precursors every three years, on a schedule that includes the emissions year 2002.
For stationary point sources in Sunland Park, the NMED provided estimates for each commercial or industrial operation that emits 100 ton/year or greater of NO
Table 1 below lists emissions data (area, point, mobile, and biogenic) for the base year of 2002 for the ozone precursors NO
The procedures used by the NMED for development of the emissions inventory are described in the NMED's submitted 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Sunland Park area, pages 8-49. The emissions inventory process includes quality assurance procedures to verify that data have been reviewed and examined for their source or origin, methods of compilation, accuracy, occurrence of errors, and clarity. This is to assure a good product and that such procedures can easily be applied to future inventories. EPA's
EPA has reviewed the State's methodologies, modeling data, and performance, etc. in developing the 2002 base year emissions and finds that New Mexico has developed the 2002 emissions inventory appropriately to identify the level of ozone-forming emissions in Sunland Park that was consistent with attainment of the NAAQS in 2002.
Projections for 2014 were developed by NMED using a University of New Mexico, Bureau of Business and Economic Research study which projected a population growth of 3.2%/year. Based on this study, the State projected all of the emission categories would grow at 3.2%/year. Table 2 shows the projected VOC, NO
The primary purpose of a maintenance plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in compliance with the 1997 ozone standard for the 10 year period following the effective date of designation as unclassifiable/attainment. The end projection year is 10 years from the effective date of the attainment designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which for Sunland Park was June 15, 2004. Therefore, the plan must demonstrate attainment through 2014. As discussed in section (1) Attainment Inventory above, New Mexico has identified the level of ozone-forming emissions in Sunland Park that was consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 2002. New Mexico has projected VOC, NO
Generally, maintenance is demonstrated when emissions in the projection year remain less than or equal to the emissions during the attainment period. The projections provided by New Mexico, however, actually show an increase in emissions. For 2014, the VOC and NO
In projecting future emissions, New Mexico's use of projected population as a surrogate for estimating the rate of emissions growth results in a significant overestimate of emissions growth. Using population as a surrogate does not take into account the significant reductions that will occur due to fleet turnover in both on-road and off-road categories. The best way to calculate these emissions would be to use EPA's mobile emission factor model and the non-road emissions model along with projections of vehicle miles traveled. We examined the base and projected El Paso emissions contained in the Texas maintenance plan for the El Paso area, which EPA approved on January 15, 2009, at 74 FR 2387. To make a more reasonable estimation of emissions growth for the mobile source category, we looked at the emissions projections for El Paso performed using the MOBILE model for on-road emissions and NonRoad model for off-road emissions. In El Paso, mobile NO
EPA recognizes that the estimates in Tables 4 and 5 are rough approximations, analogized from the information specific for the El Paso area, and we would not normally rely on these methods for emission projections. In this case, however, because of the overestimate of the projected growth in emissions in the Sunland Park area for the year of 2014, we believe that the use of these El Paso analogy methods by EPA serves the purpose to illustrate the Sunland Park area will continue in attainment through 2014.
We also believe that these El Paso analogy methods are adequate in this instance because emissions in Sunland Park represent only a small percentage of the emissions in the Paso Del Norte airshed. As demonstrated in Table 5 below, sources in the Sunland Park area were contributing a small percentage (approximately 1.6%) of the CO, NO
Since such a small percentage of emissions to the airshed are contributed by Sunland Park, we feel it is reasonable to rely upon the El Paso analogy methods to demonstrate that the attainment level emissions in Sunland Park will be maintained.
As discussed previously, we examined the base and projected El Paso emissions contained in the Texas maintenance plan for the El Paso area, which EPA approved on January 15, 2009, at 74 FR 2387. Table 6 below, shows emissions data for the base year of 2002 for the ozone precursors NO
Table 8 shows that overall emissions of VOC and NO
The State of New Mexico has committed in its maintenance plan to continue operation of an appropriate
The Area was meeting the 1997 8-hour Standard during the 2002-2004 time period when we did designations with a design value of 77 ppb. The area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour standard with the most recent design value for 2008-2010 being 70 ppb. The area also has met the revoked 1-hour standard since 1998 with the most recent 1-hour design value of being 97 ppb.
To guarantee that attainment will be continued in the future, the State commits in the maintenance plan to track the progress of the maintenance plan by providing the EPA with an interim emissions inventory report for point, area, mobile and biogenic emissions of VOCs and CO in the Sunland Park area. In addition, New Mexico commits to verify the 8-hour ozone status through appropriate ambient air quality monitoring, and to quality assure air quality monitoring data according to federal requirements. New Mexico further demonstrates that it has the legal authority to implement and enforce all air quality measures needed to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan includes contingency provisions to correct promptly any violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS that occurs in the Sunland Park area. The contingency indicator is based upon monitoring data. The triggering mechanism for activation of contingency measures is a monitoring violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the maintenance plan, if contingency measures are triggered, New Mexico is committing to implement the measures as expeditiously as practicable but no longer than 24 months following the trigger.
The following contingency measures are identified for implementation: The use of public outreach materials, e.g., public service announcements, press releases, and informational pamphlets; the holding of an open house at the beginning of the ozone season and mid-way through; and Ozone Action Days, e.g., announcements during weather forecasts on the radio and television, advisories on the NMED web site. Real time monitoring data is also available on the NMED web site. Information on Ozone Action Days will be included in the outreach material for the Maintenance area.
These contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA's long-standing guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of Continued Attainment. Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided in the State's Sunland Park 8-hour Ozone maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, contingency plan, and verification of continued attainment. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by the State of New Mexico for the Sunland Park area meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
EPA is approving a revision to the New Mexico SIP. The revision is a 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for Sunland Park. Sunland Park remains in attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard. The State of New Mexico submitted the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan on behalf of the NMED for Sunland Park to EPA on May 2, 2007. EPA is approving the maintenance plan SIP revision for Sunland Park as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) and EPA's regulations under 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) and (4) and being consistent with EPA guidance. We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy. Therefore, we are approving the request of NMED to revise the SIP for the Sunland Park ozone area.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason and because this action will not have a significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Because this rule merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations.
In reviewing SIP submissions under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to establish and implement procedures for the transfer of excess computers or other technical equipment for the purposes of distribution to a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area.
Interested parties should submit comments on or before July 15, 2011 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0599-AA13, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Michael R. Johnson, Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA on (202) 720-9779 or by mail at USDA, OPPM, PMD, 300 7th Street, SW., Suite 316, Washington, DC 20024. Please cite RIN 0599-AA13.
7 U.S.C. 2206b Availability of excess and surplus computers in rural areas, states that in addition to any other authority, the Secretary of Agriculture may make available to an organization excess or surplus computers or other technical equipment of the Department of Agriculture for the purposes of distribution to a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area (as defined in section 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A) of this title). It should be noted that, although 7 U.S.C. 2206b gives the Secretary of Agriculture this authority, activities authorized under this section are in addition to, and would not replace, activities conducted under other existing authorities of the Secretary with regard to property disposal. Other authorities include: 7 CFR 2812, Donation of excess research equipment to educational institutions and non-profit organizations for the conduct of technical and scientific education and research activities as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3710(i); and 7 CFR 3200, Acquisition and transfer of excess property to the 1890 Land Grant Institutions (including Tuskegee University), 1994 Land Grant Institutions, and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions in support of research, educational, technical, and scientific activities or for related programs as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2206a. Although computers and other technical equipment are available under all three programs, this program targets all cities, towns and local government entities in rural areas, whereby the other authorities are targeted to educational institutions, or certain non-profit organizations, only. USDA plans to use this authority to make available excess computers or other technical equipment to an organization that is able to refurbish such equipment for the purposes of distribution to a city, town or local government entity, including independent school districts, in rural areas. USDA's preference under this program is for organizations that refurbish the equipment to donate such equipment to cities, towns and local government entities in rural areas, including rural schools, libraries and city halls in need.
USDA's goals for this authority are to: make computers available in classrooms to assist in giving children the education needed in today's technical environment; assist rural areas with their planning, coordination, and implementation of community and economic development programs by using modern technology; use the equipment to support training, business plan development, community outreach and other productive activities designed to establish or improve services to the public therefore promoting and improving economic development in the rural areas.
USDA agencies will designate an official who will approve transfers under this part as well as function as the point of contact. Eligible recipients will contact a USDA office to get information on the availability of needed or other closely matched USDA excess computers or other technical equipment. Eligible recipients will be notified if USDA has excess computers or other technical equipment available that would fulfill their needs. The eligible recipient will send a letter to the USDA office with information regarding the request for the excess. This information submission will be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection notice included in this proposed rule. The USDA agency official will perform a review of the request to establish eligibility of the recipient and the availability of excess computers or other technical equipment. The USDA agency official will inform the requestor of the outcome of the review. The selected recipient may then work with the designated organization of its choosing to determine the schedule for receipt and refurbishing of any donated computer or technical equipment. Transfers will be accomplished using a USDA form that will be filled out by USDA and which must be signed by an authorized official of the USDA agency and an official of the eligible recipient. Eligible recipients are responsible for following up with the organization they have designated, for the final receipt of the property. The city, town, local government entity or organization must pay any costs
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management of Budget.
USDA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
USDA is requesting approval from OMB for the use of this information collection in order to ensure that excess computers or other technical equipment are transferred to eligible recipients only and that the excess computers or other technical equipment is the type and kind the recipient can use.
USDA is soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning the proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of USDA agency functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain policies that would have implications for these rights.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various government levels.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and therefore a written statement is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental review of Federal programs, and does not establish Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development with State and local governments, and is therefore outside the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, and does not have Tribal implications or impose unfunded mandates with Indian Tribes.
USDA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. This proposed rule requires one letter from requestors which can be sent electronically to USDA. USDA will continue to seek other avenues to increase electronically submitted information.
Computers, Excess, Excess computers, Excess government property, Government property, Other technical equipment, Personal property, Technical equipment.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture proposes to add 7 CFR part 3201 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2206b.
This part sets forth the procedures to be utilized by USDA when transferring excess USDA computers or other technical equipment to an organization for the purposes of distribution to a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2206b.
To be eligible under this part:
(a) A city, town, or local government entity must be located in a rural area as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A).
(b) A designated organization must:
(1) Have the documented capability to refurbish and distribute excess computers or other technical equipment;
(2) Serve the interest of cities, towns, or local government entities in rural areas; and
(3) Have been designated by an official of a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area to receive excess computers or other technical equipment under this part.
(1) A city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and
(2) Any urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town described in paragraph (1) of this definition.
(a) Each agency head will designate, in writing, an authorized official to approve transfers of excess computers or other technical equipment under this part consistent with the Department's policies on personal property management.
(b) Excess computers or other technical equipment must first be internally screened to ensure it is not needed elsewhere in the Department.
(c) To receive information concerning the availability of USDA excess computers or other technical equipment, an eligible recipient's PMO should contact any USDA office near to its location.
(d) The USDA employee responsible for personal property, at the office contacted, will review the request for eligibility of the recipient and the availability of excess computers or other technical equipment. The USDA employee will inform the requestor of the outcome of the review (
(e) Eligible recipients will express their interest in receiving property under this part by submitting a request, on letterhead paper (electronic copy is acceptable), to a USDA authorized official. All requests must originate from, and be signed by, a representative of an eligible recipient city, town, or local government entity. Requests must include:
(1) Type of excess computers or other technical equipment requested (should include specifications);
(2) Justification for eligibility (see § 3201.2);
(3) Contact information of the requestor;
(4) Logistical information such as when and how the property will be picked up; and
(5) Information on the recipient's designated organization (company name, contact person and phone number) that is designated to receive and refurbish the property for the eligible recipient.
(f) Excess computers or other technical equipment should be inspected before the property is transferred or the USDA agency should be contacted to verify the condition of the property.
(g) If the condition of the property is acceptable, the recipient or its designated organization will coordinate with the USDA contact for transfer of the property. Since the USDA agency office may have several requests for property, it is critical that the recipient or its designated organization contact USDA as soon as possible. Property will usually be allocated on a first-come, first served basis, taking into account fair and equitable distribution of excess computers or other technical equipment to all eligible recipients.
(h) Transfers will be accomplished using the appropriate USDA property transfer form. The transfer form must contain the following statement: “Property listed on this form is being transferred pursuant to the provisions in 7 CFR Part 3201.” The form must be signed by an authorized official of the USDA agency and an official of the recipient organization.
(i) A copy of the request that transferred the property must be attached to the transfer order and kept in the USDA agency's files.
(j) When property is transferred to a designated organization, a copy of the completed transfer document will be sent to the eligible recipient government entity for its records. Eligible recipients are responsible for following up with the designated organization they have designated for the final receipt of the property.
(k) In cases where an agency receives competing requests for excess computers or other technical equipment, to the extent permitted by law, the agency shall give full consideration to such factors as national defense requirements, emergency needs, energy conservation, preclusion of new procurement, fair and equitable distribution, transportation costs, and retention of title in the Government.
(l) Prior to transferring any property pursuant to this Act, the transferring agency must remove data from the excess computers or other technical equipment (memory or any kind of data storage device) according to accepted
There is no dollar limitation on excess computers or other technical equipment obtained under this part.
(a) Only an authorized USDA official may approve the transfer of excess computers or other technical equipment under this part.
(b) Excess computers or other technical equipment may be transferred for the purpose of cannibalization, provided that the requestor submits a statement clearly indicating that cannibalization of the requested property will have greater benefit than utilization of the item in its existing form. Cannibalization is a secondary use of equipment and, therefore, these requests are considered subordinate to requests for primary use.
(c) Organizations will only receive property for cannibalization when it has been specifically requested by the recipient and the cannibalized parts must only be used in computers or other technical equipment destined for eligible recipients.
Title of ownership to excess computers or other technical equipment transferred under this part shall automatically pass to the recipient once the transferring agency and recipient or designated organization sign the transfer form indicating that the organization has received the property.
The organization must pay any costs associated with packaging and transportation of the property unless it has made other arrangements. The organization must remove property from the USDA agency's premises within 15 calendar days after being notified that the property is available for pickup, unless otherwise coordinated with the USDA agency. If the recipient decides prior to picking up or removing the property that it no longer wants the property, it must notify the USDA agency that approved the transfer request that the property is no longer needed.
(a) USDA requires all excess computers or other technical equipment received by an eligible recipient pursuant to this part be placed into use within one year of receipt of the property and used for at least one year thereafter. The recipient's PMO must maintain accountable records for such property during this time period.
(b) GSA requires that all excess personal property given to non-Federal recipients be reported each fiscal year. USDA agencies that transfer property under this part must report the transfers in their annual reports to OPPM and include both the recipient and organization names. OPPM will review the reports for accuracy, as well as fair and equitable distribution of the excess computers or other technical equipment, before submitting to GSA.
When property received under this part is no longer needed by the recipient, it must be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner that is not detrimental or dangerous to public health or safety and in accordance with all Federal, state and local laws.
USDA assumes no liability with respect to accidents, bodily injury, illness, or any other damages or loss related to excess computers or other technical equipment transferred under this part. The recipient/designated organization is advised to insure or otherwise protect itself and others as appropriate.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking process.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided to consider the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Erik Erb, the petitioner, and 91 cosigners, in the planned “Quality Control/Quality Verification” (QC/QV) rulemaking (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0090). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to decrease the minimum days off requirement for security officers working 12 hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week.
Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition will be accessible at the Federal rulemaking Web site,
You can access publicly available documents related to the petition using the following methods:
•
•
•
On November 23, 2010, (75 FR 71368), the NRC published a Notice of Receipt of a PRM filed on August 17, 2010, by Erik Erb and 91 cosigners, and request for public comment. The comment period closed on February 7, 2011. The NRC received five public comments.
The NRC determined that the issues raised in PRM-26-6 are appropriate for
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking process.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided to consider the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Robert Meyer, on behalf of the Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS), the petitioner, in the planned “Quality Control/Quality Verification” (QC/QV) rulemaking (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0090). The petitioner asked the NRC to amend the regulations that govern fitness-for-duty programs. Specifically, the petitioner asked the NRC to change the term “unit outage” to “site outage” and that the definition of “site outage” read “up to one week prior to disconnecting the reactor unit from the grid and up to 75-percent turbine power following reconnection to the grid.”
Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition will be accessible at the Federal rulemaking Web site,
You can access publicly available documents related to the petition using the following methods:
•
•
NRC-2009-0090. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
Tara Inverso, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555;
On November 27, 2009 (74 FR 62257), the NRC published Notice of Receipt of a PRM filed by Robert Meyer, on behalf of the PROS, and request for public comment. The comment period closed on February 10, 2010, and the NRC received four comments.
The NRC determined that the issues raised in PRM-26-3 are appropriate for consideration and will consider them in the planned QC/QV rulemaking. The NRC staff will address the comments filed in PRM-26-3 as part of the QC/QV rulemaking. This PRM docket is closed.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking process.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided to consider the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Anthony R. Pietrangelo, on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the petitioner, in the planned “Quality Control/Quality Verification” (QC/QV) rulemaking (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0090). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations regarding its fitness-for-duty programs to refine existing requirements based on experience gained since the regulations were last amended in 2008.
Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition will be accessible at the Federal rulemaking Web site,
You can access publicly available documents related to the petition using the following methods:
•
•
•
Tara Inverso, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-415-1024;
On October 22, 2010, (75 FR 65249), the NRC published a Notice of Receipt of a PRM filed by Anthony R. Pietrangelo, on behalf of NEI, and request for public comment. The comment period closed on January 5, 2011. The NRC received 49 public comments.
The NRC determined that the issues raised in PRM-26-5 are appropriate for consideration and will consider them in the planned QC/QV rulemaking. The NRC staff will address the comments filed in PRM-26-5 as part of the QC/QV rulemaking. This PRM docket is closed.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Availability of preliminary proposed rule language.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is making available for comment preliminary proposed rule language concerning the NRC's proposed amendments to the material control and accounting (MC&A) regulations. These regulations apply to NRC licensees who are authorized to hold special nuclear material (SNM) and to certain licensees within the jurisdiction of the Agreement States that hold SNM and submit material status reports to the NRC. The goal of this rulemaking is to revise and consolidate the MC&A requirements. This Notice briefly summarizes the proposed amendments. After the Commission has reviewed and approved the proposed rule, it will be formally published for comment.
Submit comments by June 30, 2011. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0096 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information and, therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed. You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods:
•
•
•
Thomas Young, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-5795, e-mail
The NRC plans to amend parts 72, 74, and 150 to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The majority of the changes would be to the MC&A provisions in 10 CFR part 74.
The existing 10 CFR part 74 regulations are organized in a graded fashion. General MC&A reporting and recordkeeping requirements in subpart B apply to all licensees authorized to hold SNM under 10 CFR part 70. Licensees authorized to hold SNM of “low strategic significance” (defined in 10 CFR 74.4) are subject to the more rigorous MC&A requirements in subpart C. Such licensees operate what are known as Category III facilities, which include all uranium enrichment facilities and the fuel fabrication facilities supplying fresh fuel assemblies to commercial power reactors. Licensees authorized to hold SNM of “moderate strategic significance” (defined in 10 CFR 74.4) are subject to the MC&A requirements in subpart D, and are authorized to operate Category II facilities (no such facilities now operate). The most rigorous MC&A requirements are in subpart E, and apply to licensees authorized to hold a “formula quantity” (defined in 10 CFR 74.4) of strategic SNM. Such licensees
The MC&A requirements for Category I-III facilities include general performance objectives, and most of these facilities must meet item control requirements.
The MC&A provisions would be revised to include general performance objectives applicable to all licensees authorized to possess SNM. Licensees authorized to hold significant amounts of SNM would be required to have written MC&A procedures. Licensees authorized to possess any quantity of SNM would be required to have item control systems. Subparts C and D of 10 CFR part 74 (applicable to Category III, and II facilities, respectively) would be revised to remove most of the current exemptions from the item control requirements. Subparts C, D, and E would be revised to introduce the two-person rule (
Category I, II and III facilities must have fundamental nuclear material control (FNMC) plans that have been approved by the NRC. The NRC staff's view is that FNMC is an outdated term, as it does not include “accounting,” and thus does not fully describe the accounting aspects that MC&A programs must include. Existing references in subparts C, D, and E of 10 CFR part 74 to FNMC plans would therefore be replaced with references to an MC&A plan. The proposed rulemaking would also:
• Consolidate in 10 CFR part 74 the MC&A requirements currently in 10 CFR part 72 for independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs);
• Revise 10 CFR 150.17, which is applicable to those authorized to hold SNM in Agreement States, to conform to the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 74.13. No substantive changes would be involved;
• Make references to due dates and reporting frequencies more uniform by expressing such timeframes in terms of calendar days;
• Amend 10 CFR 74.4 by adding, removing, and modifying certain defined terms that are used throughout 10 CFR part 74. The proposed definitions to be added are:
• Add Appendix A, “Categories of Special Nuclear Material,” to 10 CFR part 74. This Appendix would be based on existing Appendix M to 10 CFR part 110, and would show the SNM quantity limits respectively for Category I, Category II, and Category III; the corresponding subpart in 10 CFR part 74 for each category; and the formulae to calculate any combination of strategic SNM within the quantity limits for a category.
The NRC is making the preliminary proposed rule language summarized in this notice available to inform stakeholders of the current status of this proposed rulemaking, and is inviting comment on the language. This preliminary proposed rule language may be subject to significant revisions during the rulemaking process. Public input at this stage will help inform the development of the proposed rule.
The NRC will review and consider any comments received; however, the NRC will not respond to any comments received at this pre-rulemaking stage. As appropriate, the Statements of Consideration for the proposed rule will briefly discuss any substantive changes made to the preliminary language as a result of the comments now being solicited. Stakeholders will have a further opportunity to comment on the rule language when it is published as a proposed rule in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. The NRC will respond to any such comments in the Statements of Consideration published with the final rule language.
The NRC may post updates to the preliminary proposed rule language on the Federal rulemaking Web site under Docket ID NRC-2009-0096. Regulations.gov allows members of the public to set-up notifications so that they may be alerted when documents are added to a docket. Users are notified via e-mail at an e-mail address provided at the time of registration for the notification. Directions for signing up for the automatic notifications can be found at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its proposed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule Update and solicits comments from interested organizations and individual members of the public.
To be considered, comments must be mailed or delivered to the address listed below by 5 p.m. on or before June 15, 2011.
Comments on the proposed fee schedule should be mailed or delivered to the Office of the General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004. All comments will be placed in the Board's public files and will be available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except on Federal holidays), in the Board's Public Reading Room at the same address.
Brian Grosner, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7060.
The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the
Accordingly, the Board proposes to establish the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision consists of a maintenance plan for Sunland Park, New Mexico developed to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through the year 2014. The Maintenance Plan meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA's rules, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. EPA is approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Written comments should be received on or before June 15, 2011.
Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7259; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address
In the final rules section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this
In proposed rule document 2011-10689 appearing on pages 26805-26851 the issue of Monday, May 9, 2011 make the following corrections:
On page 26806, in the first column, in the
On page 26851, immediately following the text of Addendum A, insert the following Addendum:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Request for information.
This document is a request for comments on opportunities to more effectively align benefits and incentives to prevent cost-shifting and improve access to care under the Medicare and Medicaid programs for individuals with both Medicare and Medicaid (“dual eligibles”). The document also reflects CMS' commitment to the general principles of the President's Executive Order released January 18, 2011, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-5507-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
Edo Banach, Division of Program Alignment, Federal Coordinated Health Care Office, at (410) 786-8911 or
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
The Medicare and Medicaid programs generally cover different populations, but an estimated 9.2 million low-income Americans were eligible for both programs in 2008.
There are tremendous opportunities for CMS to partner with States, providers, beneficiaries and their caregivers, and other stakeholders to improve access, quality, and cost of care for people who depend on these two programs.
Section 2602 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, enacted on March 23, 2010, and Pub. L. 111-152 hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Affordable Care Act”) created the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office (“Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office”) and charged the new office with more effectively integrating Medicare and Medicaid benefits and with improving the coordination between the Federal and State Governments for dual eligible beneficiaries. Under sections 2602(c)(5) and 2602(c)(7) of the Affordable Care Act, the goals of the Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office include eliminating regulatory conflicts and cost-shifting between Medicare and Medicaid and among related health care providers. Sections 2602(c)(1) through (4) of the Affordable Care Act further charge the Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office with addressing issues relating to quality of care and beneficiary understanding, beneficiary satisfaction, and access under Medicare and Medicaid.
As part of the Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office's efforts to meet its responsibilities and goals, as outlined in the Affordable Care Act, and in direct support of Executive Order 13563
For dual eligible beneficiaries, Medicare generally is the primary payer for benefits covered by both programs. Medicaid may then be available for any remaining beneficiary cost sharing. Medicaid may also provide additional benefits that are not (or are no longer) covered by Medicare. For example, Medicare covers skilled nursing facility services when a dual eligible beneficiary requires skilled nursing care following a qualifying hospital stay. During this time, Medicaid benefits may be available for amounts that are not paid by Medicare. Once the beneficiary no longer meets the conditions of a Medicare skilled level of care benefit, Medicaid may cover additional nursing facility services, including custodial nursing facility care. Although the two programs can work well together in financing health care for eligible beneficiaries, in some cases differential requirements between the two programs may create barriers to seamless, high quality care, creating a cost-shift between the two programs that may impede access to appropriate care.
The first step of the Alignment Initiative is to identify opportunities to align potentially conflicting Medicaid and Medicare requirements. This document represents the first step. We have compiled what we believe to be a wide-ranging list of opportunities for legislative and regulatory alignment on areas identified to date. We are seeking public comment on the list of alignment opportunities.
The list of alignment opportunities is intended to be a productive tool, with issues publicly shared for the purpose of improvement going forward. We believe public input in this early stage of the Alignment Initiative is critical to creating a foundation for future collaboration to address these issues. Comments from the public further the Alignment Initiative by engaging stakeholders in our work plan as future
Seeking public comment on the list of alignment opportunities is also in keeping with the President's directive of January 26, 2009, to promote accountability, encourage collaboration, and provide information to Americans about their Government's activities.
Once we receive public comments on the list of alignment opportunities, the next step in the Alignment Initiative is to continue to engage stakeholders, including beneficiaries, payers, providers, and States, to determine the barriers and sources of the current misalignments. We will then determine which issues to address and in what order and timeframe. All areas are important, but given the scope of the issues already identified, we recognize we cannot address all issues at once, and some may take longer than others. We will identify and address those opportunities that we have the resources and authority to address, and will consider including those alignment opportunities that would require a statutory change to address in the Secretary's annual Report to Congress under section 2602(e) of the Affordable Care Act.
We are committed to an open, transparent, and accountable process. We seek comment on this initiative generally, as well as the further areas for exploration for alignment specifically (see Section III. of this notice). We will provide periodic updates on the Alignment Initiative on our Web site at
In an effort to advance the goals identified in the Affordable Care Act, and in line with the CMS three-part aim—better care for individuals, better health for populations and lower costs through improvement—the Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office has been engaged in ongoing discussions with numerous and diverse stakeholders. The Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office has used input from these discussions to develop a comprehensive list of areas in which the Medicare and Medicaid programs have conflicting requirements that prevent dual eligible individuals from receiving seamless, high quality care. Those areas fall into the following broad categories:
(1) Coordinated Care.
(2) Fee-for-service benefits (FFS).
(3) Prescription Drugs.
(4) Cost Sharing.
(5) Enrollment.
(6) Appeals.
Each of these broad categories and the specific opportunities for alignment identified to date can be found in Addendum 1. We invite public comment on these opportunities. These include opportunities to align existing program requirements, as well as preventing future conflicts when new programs are scheduled to be implemented (for example, coordinating seamless transitions between Medicaid, Medicare, and coverage under the Health Insurance Exchanges that will be established under section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act). This list will be continually updated as progress is made and new opportunities are identified. We look forward to continued collaboration with stakeholders as the Alignment Initiative proceeds.
We are interested in your comments on this initiative. As you consider your comments, we are particularly interested in your feedback concerning how misalignments between specific Medicare and Medicaid requirements impact access to high-quality care. We offer the following questions to help guide your consideration of this issue and review of this notice. These questions are framed by the various goals and requirements that Congress articulated in establishing the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office.
• How can the Medicare and Medicaid programs better ensure dual eligible individuals are provided full access to the program benefits?
• What steps can CMS take to simplify the processes for dual eligible individuals to access the items and services guaranteed under the Medicare and Medicaid programs?
• Are there additional opportunities for CMS to eliminate regulatory conflicts between the rules under the Medicare and Medicaid programs?
• How can CMS best work to improve care continuity and ensure safe and effective care transitions for dual eligible beneficiaries?
• How can CMS work to eliminate cost-shifting between the Medicare and Medicaid programs? How about between related health care providers?
Section 2602 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, enacted on March 23, 2010).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; availability of supplemental documents; reopening of comment period; correction.
This document corrects the docket number referenced in the Addresses and Instructions paragraphs to a proposed rule's notice of availability of supplemental documents published in the
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4325.
In the notice, FR Doc. 2011-11150, beginning on page 26681 in the issue of May 9, 2011, make the following corrections, in both the
Notice of Public Meeting.
Notice is hereby given that the Administrative Conference of the United States will host a public meeting of the Committee on Regulation on May 31, 2011 beginning at 2:30 p.m. The meeting is expected to run for approximately 90 minutes. At the meeting, Professor Wendy Wagner of the University of Texas Law School will discuss an outline of her planned research for a Conference project on “Science in the Administrative Process” and receive input from the committee on the planned research for the project. Complete details regarding the meeting, the research outline, information on meeting attendance (including information about remote access and obtaining special accommodation for persons with disabilities), and instructions on how to submit comments to the committee will be available on the “Research” section of the ACUS Web site,
Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
Tuesday, May 31, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Administrative Conference of the United States, 1120 20th Street, NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036.
Reeve T. Bull, Designated Federal Officer, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1120 20th Street, NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent and Request for Nominations.
The USDA intends to reestablish the National Genetic Resources Advisory (Council).
The purpose of the Council is to formulate recommendations on actions and policies for the collections, maintenance, and utilization of genetic resources; to make recommendations for coordination of genetic resources plans of several domestic and international organizations; and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Genetic Resources Program Director of new and innovative approaches to genetic resources conservation.
Written nominations must be received on or before June 30, 2011.
Nominations should be sent to J. Robert Burk, Executive Director, REE Advisory Board Office, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3901-S, Washington, DC 20250-0321; Fasimile: (202) 720-6199. E-mail:
J. Robert Burk, Designated Federal Official; Phone: (202) 720-8408; E-mail
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council for 2 years. The purpose of the Council is to formulate recommendations on actions and policies for the collection, maintenance, and utilization of genetic resources; resources; to make recommendations for coordination of genetic resources plans of several domestic and international organizations; and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Genetic Resources Program Director of new and innovative approaches to genetic resources conservation. The Executive Director of the Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office will serve as the Council's Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and agencies affecting the collection, preservation, and dissemination of genetic material of importance to American food and agriculture production will be called upon to participate in the Council's meetings as determined by the Council Chairperson. Members will be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve 4-year terms. Membership will consist of up to nine (9) appointed members, and seven (7) ex-officio members. Two-thirds of the appointed members will be from scientific disciplines relevant to the National Genetic Resources Program including agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, national resource sciences, health sciences, and nutritional sciences. One-third of the appointed members will be from the general public including leaders in, fields of public policy, trade, international development law, or management. The Secretary will appoint a Chairperson from the appointed members of the Council. The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals for membership on the reestablished Council. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for membership to the Council, and list their name, title, address, email address, telephone, and fax number. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to help maintain purity of non-GE genetics, from germplasm to commercial use; and improve stewardship practices and develop new tools to lessen the risk of gene flow in agricultural commodities. Individuals who are nominated will receive necessary forms from the USDA for membership. The biographical information and clearance forms must
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Eastern Arizona Counties will meet in Springerville, Arizona. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend funding of project proposals.
The meeting will be held June 8, 2011 beginning at 10:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., and continue on June 9, 2011 beginning at 8:30 a.m. until approximately 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor's Office conference room, located at 30 South Chiricahua Drive. Written comments may be submitted as described under
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor's Office, located at 30 South Chiricahua Drive. Please call ahead to 928-333-6280 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Julia Faith Rivera, RAC Program Manager, Eastern Arizona Counties Resource Advisory Committee, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, telephone 928-333-6280, or
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Requests for reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings may be made by contacting the person listed in the
The following business will be conducted: The Resource Advisory Committee will review and recommend funding of project proposals. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 1, 2011 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Attention RAC Program Manager, P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona, or by e-mail to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Chippewa National Forest Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Walker, Minnesota. 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 committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to complete specific recommendations of projects for funding and implementation.
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 9 a.m. central time.
The meeting will be held at the Chase on the Lake Hotel, Lower Conference Room, 502 Cleveland Boulevard, Walker, MN 56484. Written comments may be submitted as described under
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Chippewa National Forest Supervisors Office. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 218-335-8600 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Kay K. Getting, Public Affairs Team Leader, Chippewa National Forest Supervisors Office, 218-335-8600. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The agenda and any applicable documents may be previewed at the Secure Rural Schools RAC Web site
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Delta-Bienville Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Forest, Mississippi. 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 review and approve project proposals.
The meeting will be held on June 13, 2011, and will begin at 6 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Bienville Ranger District Work Center, Hwy 501 South, 935A South Raleigh St., Forest, Mississippi 39074. Written comments should be sent to Michael T. Esters, Bienville Ranger District Office, 3473 Hwy 35 South, Forest, Mississippi 39074. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Bienville Ranger District Office, 3473 Hwy 35 South, Forest, Mississippi 39074. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 601 469-3811 to facilitate entry into the building.
Nefisia Kittrell, RAC coordinator, USDA, Bienville Ranger District Office, 3473 Hwy 35 South, Forest, Mississippi; (601) 469-3811; E-mail:
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The meeting is open to the public.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Resource Advisory Committee will conduct a meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. 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 is to continue the review of project submittals.
The meeting will be held on May 25, 2011, from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Salt Lake County Government Center, Room S1002, 2001 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Written comments should be sent to Loyal Clark, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 88 West 100 North, Provo, Utah 84601. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 88 West 100 North, Provo, Utah 84601.
Loyal Clark, RAC Coordinator, USDA, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 88 West 100 North, Provo, Utah 84601; 801-342-5117;
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Finalize projects, and (2) schedule site monitoring visits. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before July 15, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Erica Filipek, U.S. Census Bureau, MCD, CENHQ Room 7K181, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-5161 (or via the Internet at
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request a three-year extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales and Completions, also known as the Survey of Construction (SOC). The SOC collects monthly data on new residential construction from a sample of owners or builders. The Census Bureau uses the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) electronic questionnaires SOC-QI/SF.1 and SOC-QI/MF.1 to collect data on start and completion dates of construction, physical characteristics of the structure (floor area, number of bathrooms, type of heating system,
The current clearance for this survey is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2011. No changes are planned to the questionnaire.
We sample about 1,850 new buildings each month (22,200 per year). We inquire about the progress of each building multiple times until it is completed (and a sales contract is signed, if it is a single-family house that is built for sale). We conduct an average of 7.9 interviews for each building sampled. The total number of interviews conducted each year is about 175,380. Each interview takes 5 minutes on average. Therefore the total annual burden is 14,615 hours.
The Census Bureau uses its field representatives to collect the data. The field representatives conduct interviews to obtain data.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the City of Springfield Airport Board, grantee of FTZ 225, requesting authority to reorganize and expand the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170-1173, 01/12/09 (correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09); 75 FR 71069-71070, 11/22/10). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a general-purpose zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 10, 2011.
FTZ 225 was approved by the Board on August 1, 1997 (Board Order 911, 62 FR 43143, 08/12/97), and consists of a site at the Springfield-Branson National Airport Complex, 2300 North Airport Boulevard, Springfield (Site 1—2,363 acres).
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Barry, Barton, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Dallas, Douglas, Greene, Hickory, Howell (partial), Jasper, Laclede, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, Ozark, Polk, Stone, Taney, Texas (partial), Vernon, Webster and Wright Counties, Missouri, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Springfield Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone project to include the existing site as a “magnet” site. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. The applicant is also requesting approval of the following initial “usage-driven” site:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 15, 2011. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 1, 2011.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,
ATTEST:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 51 under the alternative site framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project, and to a five-year ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 2 if not activated by May 31, 2016.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 27, 2011, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) results of redetermination as applied to Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Lian Li”) pursuant to the CIT's order granting the Department's voluntary remand request in
Victoria Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone; (202) 482-5075.
On April 14, 2009, the Department published its final results of the administrative review for CLPP from the PRC for the period from April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007.
On December 22, 2009, the Department published its amended final results of review.
Lian Li challenged the Department's
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to Lian Li, the weighted-average dumping margin for the period April 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007, for CLPP from the PRC is 4.28 percent for Lian Li. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported during the POR by Lian Li using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Remand Results.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Monkfish Oversight Committee meeting to consider actions affecting New
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 1, 2011, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Best Western Wynwood Hotel, 580 US Highway 1, Interstate Traffic Circle, Portsmouth, NH 03801;
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council;
The New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils have declared their intent to consider catch shares management for the monkfish fishery and have held a round of scoping hearings on Amendment 6 for that purpose. After reviewing public comment, the Committee directed the staff to prepare a white paper discussing the issues and considerations in developing either separate management programs for Northern and Southern Management Areas, or separating the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan into two separate plans. At this meeting, the Committee will review the white paper and develop recommendations to the Councils on how to proceed with Amendment 6.
The Committee will also review NMFS' Strategic Plan for Cooperative Research 2011-2014. NMFS will hold a public comment session in conjunction with the NEFMC's June Council meeting, at which time Committee comments will be presented.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, DoD.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) meeting will take June 16 and 17, 2011 at General Bill Creech Conference Center, 190 Dodd Blvd., Suite 200, Langley AFB, VA 23665-2788. The meeting on Thursday, June 16, will be from 7:30 a.m.-4:45 p.m. The meeting on Friday, June 17, will be from 7:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to hold the SAB quarterly meeting to conduct classified discussions on the various missions of Langley Air Force Base, how capabilities are used in the field, how this information relates to the FY11 SAB studies tasked by the SECAF, and to reach consensus and vote on the findings for the FY11 studies.
The results will also be briefed to USAF senior leadership during the last day of the meeting.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Office of the Air Force General Counsel, has agreed that all sessions of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting be closed to the public, but include input provided by the public. The meeting will concern classified information and matters covered by sections 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4). The only exception will be the Banquet the evening of Thursday, June 16, which will be open to the public.
Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
The United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer, Lt Col Anthony M. Mitchell, 301-981-7135, United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 1602 California Ave., Ste. #251, Andrews AFB, MD 20762,
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Hadal, Inc. a revocable, non-assignable, exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned inventions described in Navy Case No. 98,709: Attitude Estimation Using Ground Imagery//Navy Case No. 98,801: Apparatus and Method For Grazing Angle Independent Signal Detection//Navy Case No. 98,946: Apparatus and Method For Compensating Images For Differences In Aspect//Navy Case No. 98,947: System
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than May 31, 2011.
Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Counsel, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, 110 Vernon Ave., Code CDL, Panama City, FL 32407-7001.
Mr. James Shepherd, Patent Counsel, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City, 110 Vernon Ave., Panama City, FL 32407-7001, telephone 850-234-4646, fax 850-235-5497, or
(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.)
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will deliberate on the findings and proposed recommendations of the Resource Sponsorship Subcommittee study. The meeting will consist of discussions regarding the current Navy functional organization and the effectiveness and efficiency of its resulting Program Objective Memorandum (POM) versus other previous and potential future organizational structures.
The meeting will be held on May 31, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at CNA, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.
LCDR Don Rauch, CNO Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846, 703-681-4941.
Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for consideration by the CNO Executive Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below.
If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice then the statement, if it is to be considered by the Panel for this meeting, must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question.
The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the CNO Executive Panel Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the CNO Executive Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive Director, CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.
Department of Education.
Comment Request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 15, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 or e-mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. 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.
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 15, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. 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.
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or June 15, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is
This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, June 2, 2011, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Friday, June 3, 2011, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
Red Lion Hotel, 1101 North Columbia Center Boulevard, Kennewick, WA 99336.
Paula Call, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin Avenue, P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA 99352;
• Agency Updates, including progress on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Office of River Protection and Richland Operations Office; Washington State Department of Ecology; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
• Committee Updates, including: Tank Waste Committee; River and Plateau Committee; Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Committee; Public Involvement Committee; and Budgets and Contracts Committee.
• Potential Board Advice:
○ River Corridor Baseline Risk Assessment.
○ Tank Vapors.
○ System Plan Revision 6.
○ 200-PW-1, 3, 6 and CW-5 Operable Units Proposed Plan (tentative).
• Third Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Five-Year Review Update.
• Committee Reports.
○ Board Business:
○ Board Evaluation.
○ Preliminary 2012 Board Priorities.
○ Hanford Advisory Board Budget.
○ Process Discussions:
■ Issue Managers.
■ Advice Development.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
The proposed Uniontown Project (at the John T. Myers Lock and Dam) would consist of: (1) A 340-foot-long by 75-foot-wide powerhouse and inlet containing four Kaplan turbine-generators, with an installed capacity of 24.0 MW each for a total plant capacity of 96.0 MW; (2) a 520-foot-wide by 38-foot-high trash rack, with 4-inch openings; (3) a 300-foot-wide by 57-foot-high concrete draft tube outlet; (4) a 14.47-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
The existing Newburgh Lock and Dam is a 2,275.5-foot-long by 122-foot-high dam containing nine Taintor gates and a concrete fixed weir. Each gate is 110-foot-wide by 32-feet-high. The main and auxiliary locks are on the Indiana side of the river. The main lock is 110-foot-wide by 1,200-foot-long and the auxiliary lock is 110-foot-wide by 600-foot-long. The impoundment above the Newburgh Lock and Dam has a surface area of 16,390 acres and a storage capacity of 455,800 acre-feet. Because the purpose of the storage is navigational only, the storage would not be used for power generation.
The proposed Newburgh Project (at the Newburgh Lock and Dam) would consist of: (1) A 375-foot-long by 110-foot-wide powerhouse and inlet containing five Kaplan turbine-generators, with an installed capacity of 13.0 MW each for a total plant capacity of 65.0 MW; (2) a 400-foot-wide by 44-foot-high trash rack, with 4-inch openings; (3) a 375-foot-wide by 57-foot-high concrete draft tube outlet; (4) a 4.7-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
l.
m. You may also register online at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that on May 9, 2011, The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. filed proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order issued April 7, 2011,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on May 9, 2011, The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. filed proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order issued April 7, 2011,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on April 7, 2011 Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P. submitted a request for a waiver of the reporting requirement to file the FERC Form 2-A for 2010.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On May 6, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) contacted Commission staff regarding a meeting with South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA), licensee for the Santee-Cooper Hydroelectric Project No. 199, and staff to discuss what is needed to complete formal consultation for shortnose sturgeon (
National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Extension of Public Review and Comment Period and Announcement of an additional Public Hearing.
On April 29, 2011, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), published a notice of availability for the
The Draft CMRR-NF SEIS and its reference material are available for review on the NNSA NEPA Web site at:
For general information on the NNSA NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Mary Martin (NA-GC), NNSA NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or telephone 202-586-9438.
For general information concerning the DOE NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-4600; leave a message at (800) 472-2756; or send an e-mail to
The Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502.9[c][1] and [2]) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) require the preparation of a supplement to an environmental impact statement (EIS) when there are substantial changes to a proposal or when there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. DOE may also prepare a supplemental EIS at any time to further the purposes of NEPA. Pursuant to these provisions, the NNSA has prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico.
The CMRR Project was first analyzed in the 2003
On April 29, 2011, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), published a notice of availability for the
The newly added public hearing will take place on Monday, May 23, 2011 in Albuquerque, NM. The complete schedule for public hearings on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS with all dates, times, and locations is the following:
• Monday, May 23, 2011, at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Albuquerque Marriott, Salon F, 2101 Louisiana Boulevard, NE., Albuquerque, NM.
• Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 60 Entrada Drive, Los Alamos, NM.
• Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Santa Claran Hotel, 464 N. Riverside Drive, Española, NM.
• Thursday, May 26, 2011, at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Rooms, 6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, NM.
The first half hour of each hearing will be conducted as an open house-style session with subject matter experts available to discuss the project and answer questions; the remainder of the hearing will be devoted to receiving oral and written comments.
NNSA invites stakeholders and members of the public to submit comments on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS during the public comment period, which started with the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy determination.
EPA is notifying the public that it has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted on August 31, 2010 and February 14, 2011, by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of EPA's finding, the Baton Rouge area must use these budgets for future conformity determinations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
These budgets are effective May 31, 2011.
The essential information in this notice will be available at EPA's conformity Web site:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refers to EPA. The word “budget(s)” refers to the mobile source emissions budget for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the mobile source emissions budget for nitrogen oxides (NO
On August 31, 2010, we received a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). This revision consisted of a Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan SIP for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area. In response to further EPA communication with LDEQ, we received a technical amendment to the Baton Rouge Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan SIP from LDEQ on February 14, 2011. This submittal established the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for the Baton Rouge area for the year 2022. The MVEB is the amount of emissions allowed in the state implementation plan for on-road motor vehicles; it establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional transportation network. The MVEB is provided in Table 1:
On March 3, 2011, EPA posted the availability of the Baton Rouge area budget on EPA's Web site, as part of the adequacy process, for the purpose of soliciting public comments. The comment period closed on April 4, 2011, and we received no comments.
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region 6 sent a letter to LDEQ on April 27, 2011, finding that the MVEB in the Baton Rouge Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan SIP, submitted on August 31, 2010 and February 14, 2011, is adequate and must be used for transportation conformity determinations in the Baton Rouge area. This finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity Web site:
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 93, requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a 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.
The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have also described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, final rulemaking entitled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes” (69 FR 40004). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the Baton Rouge Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan SIP revision submittal. Even if EPA finds a budget adequate, the Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan SIP revision submittal could later be disapproved.
Within 24 months from the effective date of this notice, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new MVEB if the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e). See, 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition to object to a state operating permit.
Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR
Copies of the Order, the petition, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available electronically at the following address:
Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or
The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
Petitioner submitted a petition regarding the Paradise Fossil Fuel Plant on January 9, 2010, requesting that EPA object to the CAA title V operating permit (#V-07-018R1). Petitioner alleged that the permit was not consistent with the CAA because it failed to include a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) analysis for the three main boilers (Units 1-3) due to alleged major modifications undertaken at Paradise Fossil Fuel Plant beginning in 1984 without TVA obtaining required PSD permits.
On May 2, 2011, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The Order explains EPA's rationale for denying the petition.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Cancellation of the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) meeting.
The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) is issuing this notice to cancel the May 18-19, 2011 Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) Meeting. The notice of this meeting was previously published in the
EPA announced in the
The LGAC meeting will be held at U.S. EPA Region 5, Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building, Lake Superior conference room, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois.
Committee members and members of the public needing further information concerning this cancellation notice or any future meetings should contact Ms. Paula Zampieri, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) at (202) 566-2496 or e-mail at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Panel to Review EPA's Draft Oil Spill Research Strategy.
The teleconference will be held on June 9, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).
The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this teleconference meeting may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4885; by fax at (202) 565-2098 or via e-mail at
The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on
The panel held public teleconferences on April 11 and 12, 2011 (76 FR 16769-16770) to discuss the strategy. The purpose of the June 9, 2011, teleconference is for the Panel to discuss their draft advisory report.
Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a Federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal Officer for the relevant advisory committee directly.
This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has received an application for a $47 million long-term guarantee to support the export of approximately $41 million worth of mining equipment and services to Australia. The U.S. exports will enable the Australian mining company to produce, on average, 36 million metric tons of iron ore per year during the 7-year repayment term of the guarantee. Available information indicates that new Australian production of iron ore will be sold in China. Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by e-mail to
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice.
The FDIC has determined that insufficient assets exist in the receivership of Corus Bank, N.A., Chicago, Illinois, to make any distribution to general unsecured claims, and therefore such claims will recover nothing and have no value.
The FDIC made its determination on May 10, 2011.
If you have questions regarding this notice, you may contact an FDIC Claims Agent at (972) 761-8677. Written correspondence may also be mailed to FDIC as Receiver of Corus Bank, N.A.,
On September 11, 2009, Corus Bank, N.A., Chicago, Illinois, (FIN #10117) was closed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed as its receiver
Section 11(d)(11)(A) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A), sets forth the order of priority for distribution of amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution to pay claims. Under the statutory order of priority, administrative expenses and deposit liabilities must be paid in full before any distribution may be made to general unsecured creditors or any lower priority claims.
As of December 31, 2010, the value of assets available for distribution by the Receiver, together with anticipated recoveries, was $1,485,477,307. As of the same date, administrative expenses and depositor liabilities equaled $2,599,960,134, exceeding available assets and potential recoveries by at least $1,114,482,827. Accordingly, the FDIC has determined that insufficient assets exist to make any distribution on general unsecured creditor claims (and any lower priority claims) and therefore all such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) by Ndahendekire Barbara, hereinafter “Complainant,” against African Shipping; Njoroge Muhia, ALCO Logistics, LLC; Brenda Alexander; and Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc.; hereinafter “Respondents”. Complainant asserts that she is acting agent for Ndahendekire Foundation located in Mbarara, Uganda. Complainant alleges that: Respondent African Shipping specializes in international cargo shipping; Respondent Njoroge Muhia is Chief Executive Officer for African Shipping; Respondent ALCO Logistics, LLC, is a freight forwarding and logistics company; Respondent Brenda Alexander is an acting agent for ALCO Logistics, LLC; and Respondent Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc., is a freight forwarding company.
Complainant alleges that Respondents, in connection with the shipment of two containers and chassis to Mombasa Kenya, violated Section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), by “failing to ensure that Ms. Barbara[`s] (sic) container was delivered safely, securely and on time to the required destination.” Specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondents “Mr. Muhia and African Shipping are in full breach of contract by contracting with other shippers and not paying the shippers, allowing the containers and chassis to be delivered to the wrong location, not notifying Ms. Barbara of the delivery, allowing demurrages to incur, requesting additional payments for delivery and release of the chassis and containers.” Complainant also alleges that Respondents thereby caused “Ms. Barbara additional shipping cost as well as the loss of her contract for supplying medical supplies and equipment.”
Complainant asks “that respondent be required to answer the charges herein; that after due hearing, an order be made commanding said respondent (and each of them); to cease and deist (sic) from the aforesaid violations of said act(s); to establish and put in force such practices as the Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable; to pay said complainant by way of reparations for the unlawful conduct * * * the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($150,000), with interest and attorney's fees or such sum as the Commission may determine to be proper as an award of reparation; and that such other and further order or orders be made as the Commission determines to be proper in the premises.”
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 May 9, 2012 and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by September 6, 2012.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2011.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
John P. Wiegand (415-848-5174), FTC, Western Region, San Francisco, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 10, 2011. Write “Southwest Health Alliances, File No. 091 0013” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, don't include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, don't include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Southwest Health Alliances, File No. 091 0013” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a proposed Consent Order with Southwest Health Alliances, Inc., dba BSA Provider Network (“BSA Provider Network” or “Respondent”). The agreement settles charges that BSA Provider Network violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, by fixing prices charged to those offering coverage for health care services (“payors”) in the Amarillo, Texas, area. The proposed Consent Order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed Consent Order final.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Order. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed Consent Order or to modify their terms in any way. Further, the proposed Consent Order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the Complaint (other than jurisdictional facts) are true.
BSA Provider Network is a multi-specialty independent practice association consisting of multiple, independent medical practices with a total of approximately 900 physician members, of which approximately 300 are devoted to primary care, in the Amarillo, Texas, area.
Since at least 2000, BSA Provider Network has acted to restrain competition by facilitating, entering into, and implementing agreements to fix the prices and other terms at which it would contract with payers; and to engage in collective negotiations over terms and conditions of dealing with payers.
BSA Provider Network did not engage in any activity that might justify collective agreements on the prices its members would accept for their services. For example, the physicians in BSA Provider Network have not clinically or financially integrated their practices to create efficiencies sufficient to justify their acts and practices. The Respondent's actions have restrained price and other forms of competition among physicians in the Amarillo, Texas, area and thereby harmed consumers (including health plans, employers, and individual consumers) by increasing the prices for physician services.
The proposed Consent Order is designed to prevent the continuance
Paragraph II.A prohibits Respondent from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among any health care providers: (1) To negotiate on behalf of any physician with payer; (2) to negotiate with any physician as a payer; (3) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payer; (4) regarding any term, condition, or requirement upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; or (5) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer except through BSA Provider Network.
The other parts of Paragraph II reinforce these general prohibitions. Paragraph II.B prohibits Respondent from facilitating exchanges of information between health care providers concerning whether, or on what terms, to contract with a payer. Paragraph II.C bars attempts to engage in any action prohibited by Paragraph II.A or II.B, and Paragraph II.D proscribes encouraging, suggesting, advising, pressuring, inducing, or attempting to induce any person to engage in any action that would be prohibited by Paragraphs II.A through II.C.
As in other Commission orders addressing health care providers' collective bargaining with health care purchasers, certain kinds of agreements are excluded from the general bar on joint negotiations. Paragraph II does not preclude BSA Provider Network from engaging in conduct that is reasonably necessary to form or participate in legitimate “qualified risk-sharing” or “qualified clinically-integrated” joint arrangements, as defined in the proposed Consent Order. Also, Paragraph II would not bar agreements that only involve physicians who are part of the same medical group practice, defined in Paragraph I.B, because it is intended to reach agreements between and among independent competitors.
Paragraphs III-VI require BSA Provider Network to notify the Commission before it initiates certain contacts regarding contracts with payers. Paragraphs III and IV apply to arrangements under which BSA Provider Network would be acting as a messenger on behalf of its member physicians. Paragraphs V and VI apply to arrangements under which BSA Provider Network plans to achieve financial or clinical integration.
Paragraph VII.A requires BSA Provider Network to send a copy of the Complaint and Consent Order to its physician members, its management and staff, and any payers who communicated with BSA Provider Network, or with whom BSA Provider Network communicated, with regard to any interest in contracting for physician services.
Paragraph VII.B allows for contract termination if a payer voluntarily submits a request to BSA Provider Network to terminate its contract. Pursuant to such a request, Paragraph VII.B requires BSA Provider Network to terminate, without penalty, any payer contracts that they had entered into since it began its alleged restraint of trade in 2000. This provision is intended to eliminate the effects of BSA Provider Network's joint price setting behavior. Paragraph VII.C requires that BSA Provider Network send a copy of any payer's request for termination to every physician who participates in each group.
Paragraph VII.D contains notification provisions relating to future contact with physicians, payers, management, and staff. These provisions require BSA Provider Network to distribute a copy of the Complaint and Consent Order to each physician who begins participating in each group; each payer who contacts each group regarding the provision of physician services; and each person who becomes an officer, director, manager, or employee for three years after the date on which the Consent Order becomes final. In addition, Paragraph VII.D requires BSA Provider Network to publish a copy of the Complaint and Consent Order, for three years, in any official publication that it sends to its participating physicians.
Paragraphs VII.E and VIII-IX impose various obligations on BSA Provider Network to report or to provide access to information to the Commission to facilitate monitoring its compliance with the Consent Order.
Pursuant to Paragraph X, the proposed Consent Order will expire 20 years from the date it is issued.
By direction of the Commission.
General Services Administration.
Notice.
This notice provides submitters notice pursuant to Executive Order 12600 that the General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Acquisition Systems Division (ASD) has received several FOIA requests for certain data elements (CCR extracts) within the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. This notice describes each data element contained in CCR, and its exemption status under FOIA.
The following information applies to CCR data fields 250 through 254 only, which are marked with a “*”:
Information posted in data fields 250 to 254 prior to April 15, 2011, regardless of which Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision or clause it is posted under, will be subject to release in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act procedures at 5 U.S.C. 552, including, where appropriate, procedures promulgated under E.O. 12600, “Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information.”
Information posted in data fields 250 to 254 (or subsequently on the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), on or after April 15, 2011, will be available to the public, as required by Section 3010 of Public Law 111-212 (see 41 U.S.C. 417b, as codified, 41 U.S.C. 2313) and in accordance with FAR clause 52.209-9 (version dated JAN 2011).
Federal contractors must NOT post information required under FAR clause 52.209-7 (version dated JAN 2011) on or after April 15, 2011. Any contractors with a contract containing clause 52.209-7 (version dated JAN 2011) that requires update of information on or after April 15, 2011, should contact their contracting officer immediately to discuss a modification.
The following information applies to CCR data fields 255 through 260, which are marked with “**”:
Any information entered in data fields 255 to 260 before April 15, 2011, is only available to authorized individuals in accordance with the Freedom of
Federal contractors must not post information to data fields 255 to 260 under FAR clause 52.209-7 (version dated JAN 2011) on or after April 15, 2011. Any contractors with a contract containing clause 52.209-7 (version dated JAN 2011) that requires update of information on or after April 15, 2011, should contact their contracting officer immediately to discuss a modification.
Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2011. Submit comments to the addresses shown below.
Submit comments identified by VSI-Notice 2011-01, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Meredith Whitehead at (703) 605-9466.
The CCR is an e-Gov initiative within the Acquisition Systems Division. The primary objective of the CCR is to provide a web-based application that provides a single source of vendor information in support of the contract award and the electronic payment process of the Federal government. The CCR is also a registration system for grants and assistance awards. The CCR has 260 data fields, some of which are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 4 of the Freedom of information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
The following table contains a description of these data fields and their exempt status:
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
Among the goals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) is to reduce the prevalence of violence among youth. Several important priorities included in the Center's published research agenda focus on studying how physical environments influence behavior and risk for violence. The CDC has developed an observational tool called the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) School Assessment (CSA) to assess the extent to which the physical characteristics of schools are consistent with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. The proposed research will allow an assessment of the validity of the CSA by examining the extent to which the CSA subscales, total CSA scores, and CPTED principles are related to fear and violence, and related variables. If the CSA tool is shown to measure characteristics of the school environment that are associated with fear and violence-related behaviors in school, then it may be used as the basis for research, design, and evaluation of interventions for schools seeking to prevent or reduce the occurrence of crime and violence. This may help formulate guidance for schools related to (re)designing physical features of the environment and changing policies and procedures related to using the school environment.
In addition, an exploratory purpose of this research is to determine whether the CSA items can be divided reliably into supposedly distinct variables reflecting each of the CPTED principles. If we produce practical support for the assessment of these “CPTED variables,” then we will also assess validity by determining whether these variables are logically related to our measures of fear, violence and climate in schools.
Survey data from 75 students (25 each from 6th, 7th, and 8th grades) per school site will be collected from 50 middle schools selected and recruited from 13 school districts in the metro-Atlanta, Georgia area (approximately 3,750 total student participants), in addition to the observational (CSA) data collection. The student survey will assess variables such as school climate, and actual and perceived levels of school violence at each school. In addition, archival/administrative data will be collected from each of the 50 schools on a School Site Data Form providing information on neighborhood and school characteristics from various sources (
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 or send comments to Daniel Holcomb, CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Statements in Support of Application of Waiver of Inadmissibility (0920-0006, expiration date 12/31/2011)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 212(a), (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that aliens with specific health related conditions are ineligible for admission into the United States. The Attorney General may waive application of this inadmissibility on health-related grounds if an application for waiver is filed and approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office of the Department of Homeland Security having jurisdiction. CDC uses this application primarily to collect information to establish and maintain records of waiver applicants in order to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services when terms, conditions and controls imposed by waiver are not met. CDC is requesting approval from OMB to collect this data for another 3 years.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the Rate Review Grants Cycle I funding opportunity twice; first to States (and the District of Columbia) in June 2010 and then to the territories and the five States that did not apply during the first release, (
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically to
2. By regular mail.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction and reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting notices concerning FDA's determination of the regulatory review period for PRISTIQ that appeared in the
Submit either electronic or written comments and written petitions by June 15, 2011.
Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3602.
In FR Doc. 2010-21586, appearing on page 53314, in the
1. On page 53314, in the first column, in the heading of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2009-E-0084]” is corrected to read “[Docket Nos. FDA-2009-E-0084 and FDA-2009-E-0086]”.
In FR Doc. C1-2010-21586, appearing on page 53969, in the
2. On page 53969, in the third column, in the heading of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2009-E-0084]” is corrected to read “[Docket Nos. FDA-2009-E-0084 and FDA-2009-E-0086]”.
FDA's notice concerning the Agency's determination of the regulatory review period for PRISTIQ (75 FR 53314) inadvertently omitted docket number FDA-2009-E-0086. Because the period for submitting comments and petitions closed on February 28, 2011, FDA is reopening the comment period to provide the opportunity for interested parties to submit comments or petitions to docket number FDA-2009-E-0086.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neurodifferentiation, Plasticity, and Regeneration Study Section, June 1, 2011, 8 a.m. to June 2, 2011, 4 p.m., Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the Hotel Monaco, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. The meeting dates and time
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases Study Section, June 13, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to June 14, 2011, 5 p.m., The Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009 which was published in the
The meeting will be held one day only June 13, 2011, 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) will conduct a study to evaluate the relationships between different grantee characteristics and implementation strategies to outcomes at the project, school, and student level. Data collected by this study will facilitate an examination of contextual factors and inform those who hope to improve the effectiveness of partnerships and implementation efforts under the grant and lead to improved outcomes for communities, schools, and students. The three agencies sponsoring
Data collection activities involve the administration of four separate surveys (a Baseline Assessment Survey, a Project-Level Survey, a School-Level Survey, and a Staff School Climate Survey) and a Site Visit Protocol for individuals involved with the SS/HS Initiative at the local grantee level. Respondents will submit their responses for all surveys via Qualtrics, a third-party, online Web-based survey platform, except for the Site Visit Protocol, which will be administered on site with grantees.
The estimated burden for data collection is 5,732 hours across a total of 28,125 participants. Using median hourly wage estimates reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, and a loading rate of 25%, the estimated total cost to respondents is $207,343. A breakdown of these estimates is presented in the following table:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 8-1099, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Revision of an existing collection of information: 1651-0111.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the CBP Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record), CBP Form I-94W (Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure), and the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).
Written comments should be received on or before July 15, 2011, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
ESTA can be accessed at
Instructions and samples of CBP Forms I-94 and I-94W can be viewed at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of proposed information collection.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202.402.3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail Ms. Pollard at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (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; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
This Notice also lists the following information:
All public housing authorities (PHA) are required to submit a five (5) year plan and annual plans as stated in Section 5A of the 1937 Act, as amended; however, for PHAs with specific types of Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration agreements (33 at the time of submission of this request) the
Revisions are being made to the 50900 form to streamline the Plan and Report submission process to increase the accuracy of data collection for the demonstration. Further, the form has been revised so that the respondents are not asked to provide duplicated information to the Department.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6856 for an additional 20-year period. The extension is necessary to continue protection of the unique natural and ecological research values of the Abbott Creek Research Natural Area, which would otherwise expire on May 5, 2011.
Charles R. Roy, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6189, or Dianne Torpin, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 503-808-2422.
The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension to continue protection of the unique natural and ecological research values at the Abbott Creek Research Natural Area. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on May 5, 2031, unless as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal will be further extended.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
Public Land Order No. 6856 (56 FR 20550 (1991)), that withdrew 2,760.94 acres of National Forest System land from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the Abbott Creek Research Natural Area, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until May 5, 2031.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6857 for an additional 20-year period. The extension is necessary to continue protection of the scenic and recreational values, along with the investment of Federal funds at the Squaw Lakes Recreation Area, that would otherwise expire on May 5, 2011.
Charles R. Roy, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6189, or Dianne Torpin, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 503-808-2422.
The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension in order to continue protection of the scenic and recreational values, along with the investment of Federal funds at the Squaw Lakes Recreation Area. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on May 5, 2031, unless as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
Public Land Order No. 6857 (56 FR 20551 (1991)), which withdrew 540 acres of National Forest System land from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the Squaw Lakes Recreation Area, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until May 5, 2031.
43 CFR 2310.4.
United States International Trade Commission.
May 19, 2011 at 11 a.m.
Room 110, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-384 and 731-TA-806-808 (Second Review) (Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on April 26, 2011, a proposed First Modification to the Consent Decree previously entered in
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed First Modification for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The proposed First Modification may be examined at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th St., Kansas City, KS 66101. During the public comment period, the proposed First Modification may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). 44 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)(A). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Wage and Hour Division is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the Information Collection: Regulations 29 CFR part 547, Requirements of a “Bona Fide Thrift or Savings Plan” and Regulations 29 CFR part 549, Requirements of a “Bona Fide Profit-Sharing Plan or Trust”. A copy of the proposed information request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments identified by Control Number 1235-0013, by either one of the following methods:
Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretations, Wage and Hour, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
I.
II.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
III.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1351,
AARIN is application for the public to fly in SSC's restricted air space. The application distributes the information to the appropriate employees, such as security for badging. The application produces a permit number when it is approved or a notification when it is rejected. At the moment, this process is performed through a series of e-mails, whereas AARIN's data will be in an electronic database.
Electronic.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
10 a.m., Thursday, May 19, 2011.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. Final Rule—Part 740 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Accuracy of Advertising and Notice of Insured Status.
2. Final Rule—Part 745 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Share Insurance and Appendix.
3. Final Rule—Part 750 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Golden Parachute and Indemnification Payments.
4. Proposed Rule—Part 705 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Community Development Revolving Loan Fund.
5. Voluntary Prepayment of Stabilization Fund Assessment.
6. Insurance Fund Report.
11:30 a.m., Thursday, May 19, 2011.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Insurance Appeal. Closed pursuant to exemption (6).
2. Personnel (2). Closed pursuant to exemption (2).
3. Consideration of Supervisory Activity. Closed pursuant to some or all of the following: Exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B).
Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board,
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 February 15, 2011, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
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.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request reinstatement and approval of this data collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this information collection.
Written comments should be received by July 15, 2011 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail to
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or send e-mail to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and
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 July 15, 2011, 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?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of May 16, 23, 30, June 6, 13, 20, 2011.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 16, 2011.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 20, 2011.
The Briefing on the Progress of the Task Force Review of NRC Processes
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an e-mail to
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of an existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Peace Corps invites the general public to comment on this request for approval of an existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number, Peace Corps Response Applicant Personal and Professional Reference forms.
Submit comments on or before July 15, 2011.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, Freedom of Information Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or e-mail at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
This information collection is used by Peace Corps Response staff to learn from someone, who knows a volunteer applicant and his or her background, whether the applicant possesses the necessary characteristics and skills to serve as a Peace Corps Response Volunteer.
a. Estimated number of applicants: 2,500.
b. Estimated number of applicants who submit references: 500.
c. Estimated number of references required per applicant: 2.
d. Estimated number of reference forms received: 1,000.
e. Frequency of response: One time.
f. Estimated average time to respond: 10 minutes.
g. Annual burden hours: 167 hours.
h. Estimated annual cost to respondents: $0.00.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Peace Corps invites the general public to comment on this request for approval of a new proposed information collection, Peace Corps Response Application (OMB Control Number 0420—pending). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Submit comments on or before July 15, 2011.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, Freedom of Information Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or e-mail at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
This information collection will be used by Peace Corps Response staff to perform initial screening for potential candidates for specific Peace Corps Response assignments. The information collection requests basic information about an applicant's technical and language skills and availability for Peace Corps Response assignments. Peace Corps Response deploys volunteers throughout the world to work in short term assistance (6 months on average) projects.
(a) Estimated number of respondents: 2,500.
(b) Frequency of response: one time.
(c) Estimated average burden per response: 60 minutes.
(d) Estimated total reporting burden: 2,500 hours.
(e) Estimated annual cost to respondents: $0.00.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on May 18, 2011 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
The Commission will consider whether to propose new rules and amendments to existing rules to implement provisions of Subtitle C of Title IX of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that would apply to credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, providers of third-party due diligence services for asset-backed securities, and issuers and underwriters of asset-backed securities.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) on July 21, 2010.
Section 19(g) of the Securities Act provides that the Commission may, subject to the limitations imposed by Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
For purposes of this order and as provided in Securities Act Section 19(g), the annual budget of the GASB is the annual budget reviewed and approved according to the internal procedures of the Financial Accounting Foundation.
Accounting support fees collected and other receipts of the GASB shall not be considered public monies of the United States.
To provide for an independent and more reliable funding mechanism for the GASB, the Commission has determined that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) shall establish such a reasonable accounting support fee and related rules and procedures to provide funding for the GASB. Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify fees for non co-location services. While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on May 1, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available 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 is amending Rule 7051 entitled “Direct Connectivity to Nasdaq” to establish pricing for customers who are not co-located in the Exchange's data center, but require shared cabinet space and power for optional routers, switches, or modems to support their direct circuit connections. The Exchange proposes to assess customers who are not co-located in the Exchange's data center monthly fees for space based on a height unit of approximately two inches high, commonly call a “U” space and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
Currently, non co-located customers are assessed fees for direct circuit connection to the Exchange, as well as installation of an optional on-site cable router.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer non co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of those customers who believe that the non co-location services enhance the efficiency of their trading. Accordingly, fees charged for non co-location services are constrained by the fees charged to co-located customers, as well as fees charged by other exchanges, taking into consideration the different costs associated with the two service types. It should be noted, however, that the costs associated with a co-located customer are primarily fixed costs that include the costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining a staff of technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a range of non co-location fees with the goal of covering these same fixed costs and covering less significant marginal costs, such as the cost of electricity.
The Exchange proposes the same fee for non co-located customers and co-located customers because the space and utility cost are comparable. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for non co-location services that are comparable to co-location services, affected members will opt to terminate their non co-location arrangements with that exchange, and pursue range of alternative trading strategies not dependent upon the Exchange's non co-location service. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only non co-location revenues and any other revenues associated with the non co-located customer's operations. Moreover, all of the Exchange's fees for space and utility costs services are equitably allocated and non-discriminatory in that all non co-location customers are offered the same space and utility service as the co-located customers, and, there is no differentiation among customers with regard to the fees charged for such costs.
The Exchange 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.
Other exchanges charge the customer for fixed costs to house routers and other equipment to conduct its business on the premises; however, they are in a co-location relationship. For instance, the International Stock Exchange (“ISE”) charges 4.75% of ISE's equipment costs for equipment lease maintenance.
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 (the “Act”)
The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB” or “Board”) has filed with the SEC a proposed rule change relating to the MSRB's Historical Transaction Data Reports (the MSRB “Historical Data Product”). The proposed rule change would increase the fee for a one calendar year data set of the Historical Data Product from $600 to $2,500, which the MSRB believes is a fair and reasonable fee for such municipal securities transaction data. Additionally, the MSRB proposes a one-time set-up fee of $2,000 to be charged to each Historical Data Product purchaser to partially offset administrative costs (the “set-up fee”); provided, however, that the MSRB would not impose the set-up fee on any prior purchaser of the Historical Data Product or current subscriber to an MSRB Subscription Service, including the MSRB Real-Time Transaction Data Subscription Service, Comprehensive Transaction Data Subscription Service,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 Board has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to align the MSRB's Historical Data Product charges with other fees established by the MSRB, and to partially offset the cost of operating and maintaining the MSRB's Market Information Transparency Programs and the MSRB Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (“RTRS”). Since the Historical Data Product was first approved by the SEC in 2004,
The proposed rule change would increase the fee for a one calendar year data set of the Historical Data Product from $600 to $2,500, which the MSRB believes is a fair and reasonable fee for such municipal securities transaction data. Additionally, the MSRB proposes a one-time set-up fee of $2,000 to be charged to each Historical Data Product purchaser to partially offset administrative costs (the “set-up fee”); provided, however, that the MSRB would not impose the set-up fee on any prior purchaser of the Historical Data Product or current subscriber to an MSRB Subscription Service, including the MSRB Real-Time Transaction Data Subscription Service, Comprehensive Transaction Data Subscription Service, Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency Subscription Service, Primary Market Disclosure Subscription Service, or Continuing Disclosure Subscription Service.
The transaction information provided in the Historical Data Product is the same as that currently provided in the MSRB's Comprehensive Transaction Data Subscription Service, including the trade date, the CUSIP number of the issue traded, a short description of the issue, the size of the transaction (including the exact par amount reported to the MSRB on transaction amounts greater than one million dollars), the time of trade as reported by the dealer, the price of the transaction, the dealer-reported yield (if any), and a designation as to whether the transaction is a sale by a dealer to a customer, a purchase from a customer, or an inter-dealer trade. The same information provided through the Historical Data Product will remain available to the public for free on the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) web portal. The Historical Data Product will continue to be provided on CD-ROM
The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), which requires, in pertinent part, that the MSRB's rules shall:
Provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such rules shall specify the amount of such fees and charges.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change provides for commercially reasonable fees to partially offset costs associated with operating RTRS and the market information transparency programs operated by the MSRB and producing and disseminating transaction products to purchasers.
The Board 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 since it will apply equally to all persons who chose to purchase the Historical Data Product, and those who chose not to pay the charge may view the same information for free on the Board's EMMA Web site.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change took effect upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder. The MSRB designated the proposed rule change as establishing or changing a fee or charge of the MSRB.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2011-06 and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2011.
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 modify fees for non co-location services. While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on May 1, 2011.
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 is amending the Phlx Fee Schedule, Section VI entitled “Direct Connectivity to Phlx” to establish pricing for customers who are not co-located in the Exchange's data center, but require shared cabinet space and power for optional routers, switches, or modems to support their direct circuit connections. The Exchange proposes to assess customers who are not co-located in the Exchange's data center monthly fees for space based on a height unit of approximately two inches high, commonly call a “U” space and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
Currently, non co-located customers are assessed fees for direct circuit connection to the Exchange, as well as installation of an optional on-site cable router.
While co-located customers are assessed the same per U fee, the co-located customers are assessed in increments of a 4U Block at $600 per month. The Exchange seeks to establish and make transparent the fees imposed for space and utility costs to non co-located customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer non co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of those customers who believe that the non co-location services enhance the efficiency of their trading. Accordingly, fees charged for non co-location services are constrained by the fees charged to co-located customers, as well as fees charged by other exchanges, taking into consideration the different costs associated with the two service types. It should be noted, however, that the costs associated with a co-located customer are primarily fixed costs that include the costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining a staff of technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a range of non co-location fees with the goal of covering these same fixed costs and covering less significant marginal costs, such as the cost of electricity.
The Exchange proposes the same fee for non co-located customers and co-located customers because the space and utility cost are comparable. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for non co-location services that are comparable to co-location services, affected members will opt to terminate their non co-location arrangements with that exchange, and pursue range of alternative trading strategies not dependent upon the Exchange's non co-location service. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only non co-location revenues and any other revenues associated with the non co-located customer's operations. Moreover, all of the Exchange's fees for space and utility costs services are equitably allocated and non-discriminatory in that all non co-location customers are offered the same space and utility service as the co-located customers, and, there is no differentiation among customers with regard to the fees charged for such costs.
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.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
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 modify pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ has
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 amending Rule 7018 to make modifications to its pricing schedule for execution of quotes/orders through the NASDAQ Market Center of securities priced at $1 or more. Under the pricing schedule, NASDAQ offers a credit to liquidity providers, with the size of the credit varying based on a range of parameters specified in the fee schedule. The lowest liquidity provider rebate is $0.0020 per share executed for displayed quotes/orders and $0.0010 per share executed for non-displayed quotes/orders. Under the proposed change, NASDAQ will modify the parameters under which members may qualify for higher liquidity provider rebates. In general, the changes will broaden the circumstances under which members may qualify for a higher rebate, although in some circumstances the changes may reduce a particular member's rebate.
First, NASDAQ is simplifying the method of determining whether a member qualifies for its highest rebate tier of $0.0015 per share executed for non-displayed quotes/orders and $0.00295 per share executed for displayed quotes/orders. Currently, a member's eligibility for this tier is based on its achieving certain levels of liquidity provision that vary depending on overall trading volumes during the month. Thus, a member qualifies for the highest credit if it has an average daily volume through the NASDAQ Market Center in all securities during the month of: (i) More than 95 million shares of liquidity provided, if average total consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities is more than 10 billion shares per day during the month; (ii) more than 85 million shares of liquidity provided, if average total consolidated volume is between 9,000,000,001 and 10 billion shares per day during the month; (iii) more than 75 million shares of liquidity provided, if average total consolidated volume is between 8,000,000,001 and 9 billion shares per day during the month; and (iv) more than 65 million shares of liquidity provided, if average total consolidated volume is 8 billion or fewer shares per day during the month. The liquidity must be provided through a single market participant identifier (“MPID”) of the member. Under this approach, depending on the volume during a month, a member may be required to provide liquidity that represents varying percentages of the total consolidated volume in order to achieve the tier. In order to adopt a requirement that is consistent from month to month, NASDAQ is modifying the requirement so that it is directly tied to a member's percentage of total consolidated volume during the month, with any member providing liquidity through a single MPID that represents more than 0.90% of the total becoming eligible for the rebate tier. NASDAQ believes that this change will make the amount of liquidity provision required to achieve the highest rebate tier more predictable and less prone to month-to-month changes than under the current approach. For example, under the current approach, in a month with 9 billion shares of average total consolidated volume per day, a member would be required to provide a daily average of 75 million shares of liquidity, or approximately 0.83% of the total, while in a month with slightly over 9 billion shares of average total consolidated volume per day, the requirement would rise to 85 million shares of liquidity, or about 0.94% of the total. Under the changed approach, the member would be required to provide 0.90% of the total, regardless of the volume during that month. The change will ensure that a member providing that level of liquidity will consistently receive the highest rebate, whereas a member providing that level of liquidity under the current schedule might receive the highest rebate in some months but not in others as overall market volumes fluctuated. For example, during the first three months of 2011, as well as the month of April 2011,
Second, NASDAQ currently offers a rebate tier of $0.0015 per share executed for quotes/orders that are not displayed and $0.0029 per share executed for quotes/orders that are displayed to members providing a daily average of more than 35 million shares of liquidity during the month, through one or more of its MPIDs. This tier is currently not tied to overall market volumes, and therefore may be more difficult for a member to achieve in a low volume month. NASDAQ is modifying the tier to make it available to a member providing liquidity through one or more of its MPIDs that represents more than 0.45% of total consolidated trading volume. As a result, the required threshold will be lowered for any month with an average trading volume lower than 7,777,777,778 shares per day, but raised for months with higher trading volumes. To the extent that trading volumes remain at or near April 2011 levels, the new approach will make it consistently easier for members to reach the volume levels required for the highest tier.
Third, in order to retain a favorable rebate tier for members that provide a specified minimum level of liquidity without regard to overall market trading volumes, NASDAQ is also introducing a new rebate tier for members that provide a daily average of more than 25 million shares of liquidity during a month, through one or more MPIDs. Such members will receive a credit of $0.0010 per share executed for non-displayed quotes/orders, and $0.0027 per share executed for displayed quotes/orders. In addition, NASDAQ is retaining a tier for members providing a
Fourth, NASDAQ currently provides a rebate tier for members that provide specified quantities of liquidity in general and with respect to stocks listed on venues other than NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange (“Tape B stocks”) in particular. Currently, the rebate is available to members that provide a daily average of more than 20 million shares of liquidity during the month, including a daily average of more than 8 million shares of liquidity in Tape B stocks. Such members receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share executed for non-displayed quotes/orders and a rebate of $0.0029 per share executed for displayed quotes/orders. As with several other tiers, NASDAQ is modifying the tier requirements to specify percentages of total consolidated volume rather than share volumes. Specifically, a member will be eligible for this rebate tier if it provides liquidity through one or more MPIDs that represents more than 0.30% of total consolidated volume, and shares of liquidity in Tape B stocks that represent more than 0.10% of total consolidated volume. As a result, the required threshold for overall liquidity provided will be lowered in a month with average daily trading volumes below 6,666,666,667 shares, while the required threshold for Tape B liquidity would be lowered in a month with average daily trading volumes below 8 billion shares.
Fifth, NASDAQ is introducing new liquidity provider rebate tiers that focus on the extent to which a member accesses liquidity as well as its level of liquidity provision. Because members accessing high levels of liquidity contribute to the quality of the NASDAQ market through the payment of fees and by encouraging members that post liquidity to post orders that seek to interact with incoming orders, NASDAQ believes that it is appropriate to offer an enhanced liquidity provider rebate to such members. Specifically, if a member accesses shares of liquidity through one or more of its MPIDs that represent more than 0.65% of total consolidated volume, and also provides a daily average of at least 2 million shares of liquidity through one or more MPIDs, NASDAQ will pay a rebate of $0.0015 per share executed for the member's non-displayed quotes/orders, and $0.0029 per share executed for its displayed quotes/orders. Similarly, if a member accesses shares of liquidity through one or more of its MPIDs that represent more than 0.45% of total consolidated volume, and also provides a daily average of at least 2 million shares of liquidity through one or more MPIDs, NASDAQ will pay a rebate of $0.0010 per share executed for the member's non-displayed quotes/orders, and $0.0025 per share executed for its displayed quotes/orders.
Finally, with respect to liquidity provider rebate tiers focused on members active in both the NASDAQ Stock Market and the NASDAQ Options Market, NASDAQ is modifying its existing tiers and adding a new tier. Currently, a member that provides a daily average of more than 10 million shares of liquidity in the NASDAQ Stock Market, and trades a daily average of more than 130,000 contracts in the NASDAQ Options Market is eligible to receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share executed for its non-displayed quotes/orders and $0.0029 per share executed for its displayed quotes/orders. NASDAQ is reducing the required daily average number of options contracts to 115,000, while modifying the liquidity provision threshold to require shares of liquidity representing more than 0.15% of total consolidated volume. The required volume of liquidity provision would thereby be reduced in any month with an average daily volume of less than 6,666,666,667 shares.
Similarly, a member that currently provides shares representing 1.0% or more of the total consolidated volume in the NASDAQ Stock Market, and trades a daily average of more than 300,000 contracts in the NASDAQ Options Market, is eligible to receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share executed for its non-displayed quotes/orders and $0.00295 per share executed for its displayed quotes/orders. NASDAQ is reducing the liquidity provision threshold to require shares of liquidity representing more than 0.90% of total consolidated volume.
Under the new tier for members active in both markets, a member will be eligible to receive $0.0010 per share executed with respect to non-displayed quotes/orders and $0.0025 per share executed with respect to displayed quotes/orders if it provides shares of liquidity representing more than 0.10% of the total consolidated volume for the month, and also trades an average daily volume of more than 115,000 contracts on the NASDAQ Options Market during the month.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The filing introduces many changes with respect to the liquidity provider rebates paid by NASDAQ, but NASDAQ believes that the overall effect of the changes will be to make it easier for members to receive higher rebates, particularly in months with lower trading volumes, thereby reducing prices for those members that were previously unable to qualify for an enhanced rebate but that are able to do so under the revised pricing schedule. All of the proposed rebate tiers are based upon a member's level of activity in the NASDAQ Stock Market and/or NASDAQ Options Market.
With respect to the replacement of share thresholds with percentage thresholds for certain of NASDAQ's existing rebate tiers,
Similarly, the proposed new rebate tier for members providing an average daily volume of more than 25 million shares of liquidity will provide members with greater opportunities to receive a higher rebate. Accordingly, it is reasonable because it will reduce fees for members providing more than 25 million, but fewer than 35 million shares of liquidity per day, and is non-discriminatory and equitable because it is open to all members on an equal basis and provides discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with volumes.
The new rebate tiers for members that access high volumes of liquidity and provide a daily average of at least 2 million shares of liquidity are reasonable because they will reduce fees for members that qualify for the tiers. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that they are non-discriminatory and equitable because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. Although many rebate tiers focus on levels of liquidity provision, NASDAQ believes that is also reasonable and equitable to reduce fees for members that access high volumes of liquidity, because the presence of such members' order flow in turn attracts members that seek to post quotes/orders to interact with incoming order flow.
With respect to pricing changes for members active on both the NASDAQ Market Center and the NASDAQ Options Market, NASDAQ has noted in its prior filings with regard to existing rebate tiers focused on such members that the tiers are responsive to the convergence of trading in which members simultaneously trade different asset classes within a single strategy.
Finally, NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it will broaden the conditions under which members may qualify for higher liquidity provider rebates.
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. Because the market for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may readily opt to disfavor NASDAQ's execution services if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. For this reason and the reasons discussed in connection with the statutory basis for the proposed rule change, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
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.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-062, and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2011.
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 Chapter V, Sec. 2 (Fees and Charges) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”) to codify the collection of the Covered Sales Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the principal office of the Exchange, 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.
Pursuant to Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“the Act”)
The Exchange is now proposing to codify this process by adopting the proposed Section 2(c) to Chapter V of the BOX Trading Rules. This proposed amendment codifies that the fee now referred to as the Covered Sale Fee is collected indirectly from Options Participants through their clearing firms by a designated clearing agency, as defined by the Act, on behalf of the Exchange and that to the extent there may be any excess monies collected under this Rule, the Exchange may retain those monies to help fund its general operating expenses. In addition, newly proposed Section 2(c) sets forth and explains the circumstances when a Covered Sale Fee is assessed by the Exchange to an Options Participant as follows: (i) When a sale in option securities occurs with respect to which the Exchange is obligated to pay a fee to the Commission under Section 31 of the Act; and (2) when a sell order in option securities is routed for execution at an away market other than on BOX, resulting in a covered sale on that market and an obligation of the Routing Broker providing routing services for BOX, as described in Chapter XII, Sec. 5, Supp. Material .01 of the BOX Trading Rules, to pay the related sales fee of that away market.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to reletter the remainder of Section 2.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives 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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 15, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Chapter V, Section 4 and Chapter VI, Section 8 of the Exchange's rules (“NOM Rules”) governing the opening of trading at the start of the trading day and at the resumption of trading following a trading halt on NOM. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Eliminate one tie-breaker and modify a second tie-breaker used to establish the Current Reference Price and cross price; (2) modify the circumstances whereby the Exchange disseminates an indicative indicator of “market;” (3) change the start time for imbalance and indicative data dissemination; (4) clarify when an Order Imbalance Indicator is disseminated; and (5) establish a halt cross.
NOM currently employs a series of tie-breakers that resolve instances where multiple prices satisfy the conditions for
The Exchange proposes to eliminate what currently serves as the second tie-breaker (the “Order Imbalance Tie-Breaker”).
The Exchange represents that it has determined to eliminate the Order Imbalance Tie-Breaker because it has not proven useful in augmenting price discovery prior to the cross or in operating an effective opening cross.
In addition, the Exchange is proposing to modify the current third tie-breaker (the “Mid-Point Tie-Breaker”).
The indicative price is the price at which the NOM opening cross would occur if the opening cross were to occur at that time.
The Exchange also proposes to change the time at which imbalance and indicative price data will begin to be disseminated.
The Exchange proposes to clarify when an Order Imbalance Indicator will be disseminated just prior to the opening cross.
Finally, in order to provide a more orderly opening of the market after a trading halt, the Exchange proposes to establish an opening cross after the termination of a trading halt.
After careful review of the proposal, 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.
The Commission believes that the proposed elimination of the Order Imbalance Tie-Breaker and modification of the Mid-Point Tie-Breaker are consistent with the Act. Although the Exchange is eliminating the Order Imbalance Tie Breaker and modifying the Mid-Point Tie Breaker, the Exchange will continue to employ a series of tie-breakers to determine the Current Reference Price and the opening cross price where multiple prices satisfy the conditions for executing the opening cross. The Exchange represents that, since NOM was launched on March 31, 2008, it has monitored the operation of the market to identify instances where market efficiency can be enhanced.
The Commission finds that the proposed modification to the dissemination of an indicative indicator of “market buy” or “market sell” is consistent with the Act. The Exchange proposes to disseminate the indicative message of “market buy” or “market sell” when there is interest with a market price that is not offset, irrespective of the Near or Far Clearing Prices. Currently, such message is disseminated only when there is marketable interest depending on whether the available interest is lower or higher than the Near or Far Clearing Prices, respectively. This change is intended to reduce any potential for confusion regarding the meaning of an indicator that specifies “market.”
The Commission finds that the proposed change to allow NOM to select a different start time for imbalance and indicative data dissemination for a class within the window of 9:20 a.m. and 9:28 a.m. EST is consistent with the Act. Currently, the Exchange begins indicative data dissemination at 9:25 a.m. EST as previously approved by the Commission.
The Commission finds that the proposed modification to the dissemination of the final Order Imbalance Indicator is consistent with the Act. Currently, any time an imbalance remains just prior to the opening cross, the Exchange disseminates one last Order Imbalance Indicator. The Exchange proposes to disseminate that final Order Imbalance Indicator only when the imbalance contains routable trading interest that is marketable against the NBBO. After the opening cross is executed, any non-routable interest that is not cancelled will be posted. As such, dissemination of this interest will be broadcast via the consolidated quote. The effect of this change is that the Exchange will not disseminate the very last Order Imbalance Indicator that it would otherwise have disseminated right before the opening cross when the imbalance only contains non-routable interest. While this change could have the effect of reducing the last message on imbalances that the Exchange currently sends immediately before the opening cross, it also mitigates message traffic for orders that the Exchange expects would post immediately thereafter. The Commission believes this change will not adversely affect transparency with respect to imbalance information immediately prior to the opening cross.
The Commission finds that the proposed establishment of an opening cross following a trading halt is consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that conducting an opening cross will provide a more orderly opening of the market after a halt, particularly to the extent that NOM attracts higher levels of liquidity than it did previously.
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 codify its existing procedures to designate an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder and make other non-substantive clarifying changes to the text of Rule 925 titled “Inactive Nominees.”
The Exchange is also proposing to amend certain typographical errors in Exchange Rules 1 and 124 and By-Law Article II.
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify the Exchange's existing procedures for designating an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to amend the text of Rule 925 to delete irrelevant and repetitive rule language.
Rule 925 titled “Inactive Nominees” states that a member organization may designate an individual as an “Inactive Nominee” and shall pay for the privilege of maintaining that status.
The Exchange proposes to add additional language to Rule 925 to codify the existing practice of notifying the Membership Department when a member organization desires to designate an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder. The Exchange is proposing to add language to state that the member organization is required to notify the member organization of its desire to designate an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder in writing and prior to the opening of trading on any business day.
Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to add a statement that an Inactive Nominee shall meet all membership requirements including examinations administered by the Exchange to clarify a requirement that was included in the original Inactive Nominee rule filing which was approved by the Commission.
The Exchange recently filed a rule change, to among other things, amend several Exchange Rules.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to correct one typographical error in the Exchange's By-Laws. By-Law Article II, Section 2-3, titled “Filling of Vacancies” states that in the event of a board vacancy, specifically a Member Representative Director position, the Member shall elect a Person from a list of candidates prepared by the Member Nominating Committee to fill such vacancy.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that providing member organizations information related to the eligibility and requirements of Inactive Nominees within Rule 925 further clarifies the member organization's obligations with respect to the designation of Inactive Nominees as effective permit holders.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to correct typographical errors would further clarify the Exchange's Rules.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify fees for non co-location services. While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on May 1, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available 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 is amending Rule 7051 entitled “Direct Connectivity to Nasdaq” to establish pricing for customers who are not co-located in NASDAQ's data center, but require shared cabinet space and power for optional routers, switches, or modems to support their direct circuit connections. The Exchange proposes to assess customers who are not co-located in NASDAQ's data center monthly fees for space based on a height unit of approximately two inches high, commonly call a “U” space and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
Currently, non co-located customers are assessed fees for direct circuit connection to NASDAQ, as well as installation of an optional on-site cable router.
While co-located customers are assessed the same per U fee, the co-located customers are assessed in increments of a 4U Block at $600 per month. The Exchange seeks to establish and make transparent the fees imposed for space and utility costs to non co-located customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer non co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of those customers who believe that the non co-location services enhance the efficiency of their trading. Accordingly, fees charged for non co-location services are constrained by the fees charged to co-located customers, as well as fees charged by other exchanges, taking into consideration the different costs associated with the two service types. It should be noted, however, that the costs associated with a co-located customer are primarily fixed costs that include the costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining a staff of technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a range of non co-location fees with the goal of covering these same fixed costs and covering less significant marginal costs, such as the cost of electricity.
The Exchange proposes the same fee for non co-located customers and co-located customers because the space and utility cost are comparable. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for non co-location services that are comparable to co-location services, affected members will opt to terminate their non co-location arrangements with that exchange, and pursue range of alternative trading strategies not dependent upon the Exchange's non co-location service. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only non co-location revenues and any other revenues associated with the non co-located customer's operations. Moreover, all of the Exchange's fees for space and utility costs services are equitably allocated and non-discriminatory in that all non co-location customers are offered the same space and utility service as the co-located customers, and, there is no differentiation among customers with regard to the fees charged for such costs.
The Exchange 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 discussed above, the Exchange believes that proposed fees for non co-location services are comparable to the same service provided to co-locations customers. Additionally, such costs are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets, because non co-location exists to advance that competition, and excessive fees for non co-location services would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition.
Other exchanges charge the customer for fixed costs to house routers and other equipment to conduct its business on the premises; however, they are in a co-location relationship. For instance, the International Stock Exchange (“ISE”) charges 4.75% of ISE's equipment costs for equipment lease maintenance.
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.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
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”)
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) proposes to amend its strategy fee cap program and clarify its Fees Schedule in certain respects. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange currently caps market-maker and broker-dealer transaction fees at $1,000 for all reversals,
The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule to expand the fee cap for reversals, conversions and jelly roll strategies to non-FLEX options classes. Thus, reversals, conversions and jelly roll strategy transactions in non-FLEX options classes would also be eligible for the fee cap, except that any option class on which the Exchange charges the Index License surcharge fee under Footnote 14 of the CBOE Fees Schedule would continue to be excluded from the cap.
In addition, the Exchange proposes several clarifying changes to the Fees Schedule relating to the strategy fee cap program. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule to change references to “surcharge fee” and “license fee” to Index License surcharge fee, and to clarify that Index License surcharge fees associated with dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies (and not reversal, conversion and jelly roll strategies) will be passed through to trading participants on these strategies on a pro-rata basis. This is because options classes subject to the Index License surcharge fee are not included under the fee cap for reversals, conversions and jelly rolls. Second, the Exchange proposes to further amend Footnote 13 by adding the definitions of reversal strategy, conversion strategy and jelly roll strategy.
The Exchange also proposes a clean-up change to the Fees Schedule. On December 10, 2010, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to increase the Options Regulatory Fee from $.004 per
The proposed fee changes will take effect on May 2, 2011.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Request for comment.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) requests public comment to assist it in carrying out a study on, among other matters, the feasibility of establishing a system in which a public or private utility or a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) assigns nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) to determine credit ratings for structured finance products. This study, and a resulting report to Congress, are required by Section 939F of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).
The Commission will accept comments on matters related to the study on or before September 13, 2011.
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. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-629. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Randall W. Roy, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-5522; Alan A. Dunetz, Branch Chief, at (212) 336-0072; Kevin S. Davey, Securities Compliance Examiner, at (212) 336-0075; Kristin A. Devitto, Securities Compliance Examiner, at (212) 336-0038; Diane Audino, Securities Compliance Examiner, at (212) 336-0076, or Timothy C. Fox, at (202) 551-5687, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law.
Section 939F provides that the Commission, in carrying out the study, shall address four areas. One, the credit rating process for structured finance products and the conflicts of interest associated with the issuer-pay and the subscriber-pay models.
In addition, Section 939F provides that, after submission of the report to Congress resulting from the study, the Commission shall, by rule, as the Commission determines is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, establish a system for the assignment of NRSROs to determine the initial credit ratings of structured finance products, in a manner that prevents the issuer, sponsor, or underwriter of the structured finance product from selecting the NRSRO that will determine the initial credit ratings and monitor such credit ratings.
In carrying out the study required by Section 939F, the Commission believes that comments, proposals, data, and analysis from interested parties representing a wide range views of, and involvement in, the market for structured finance products and the role of NRSROs in that market would provide valuable assistance. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment from: (1) Investors and other persons who use credit ratings; (2) participants in pensions funds and other retirement vehicles that may hold structured finance products; (3) portfolio and fund managers; (4) investment advisers; (5) insurance companies; (6) credit rating agencies; (7) financial institutions; (8) originators of financial assets that are securitized into structured finance products (including, but not limited to, originators of residential and commercial real estate loans, corporate loans, student loans, credit card receivables, consumer loans and leases, auto loans and leases, auto floor plans, equipment loans and leases, and any other financial assets that are securitized); (9) issuers, underwriters, sponsors, and depositors involved in the issuance of structured finance products; (10) regulators; (11) members of the academic community; and (12) any other persons who have views concerning, and involvement in, the market for structured finance products and the role of NRSROs in that market. In addition, given the complexity of the issues surrounding the matters to be addressed in the study, the Commission believes an extended comment period of 120 days is appropriate in order to provide sufficient opportunity for all interested parties to consider and respond to the questions and provide any additional comments, proposals, data, and analysis they believe germane to the study.
The Commission requests that interested parties provide comments,
In addition, the General Accountability Office (“GAO”) has developed a framework (“GAO Framework”) for Congress and others to use in evaluating or crafting alternative compensation models for NRSROs.
Finally, the Commission notes that 10 credit rating agencies currently are registered as NRSROs, eight of which are registered in the class of credit rating for issuers of asset-backed securities.
Section 939F(b)(1) provides that the Commission, in carrying out the study, shall address the credit rating process for structured finance products and the conflicts of interest associated with the issuer-pay and the subscriber-pay models.
The Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis to assist in analyzing the credit rating process for structured finance products and the conflicts of interest associated with the issuer-pay and the subscriber-pay models. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions:
1. Describe the processes by which an NRSRO determines an initial credit rating for a structured finance product and, thereafter, monitors that credit rating.
a. A description of the process by which NRSROs are compensated for determining initial credit ratings for structured finance products and for ongoing monitoring of those ratings.
b. A description of the data collection phase of the process for determining and monitoring credit ratings for structured finance products, including: The types of data collected; the sources from which the data is obtained; whether, and, if so how, the data is validated; whether the data is public or non-public; and how, if at all, the data is captured in the NRSRO's systems.
c. A description of the analytical phase of the process for determining and monitoring credit ratings for structured finance products, including the types of analyses performed (
d. A description of the process for approving and publishing a credit rating for a structured finance product, including the steps that could lead to the modification of the credit rating before it is published (
e. A description of how the processes identified above and any other processes relating to determining and monitoring of structured finance products (including absent or missing process steps or other process-related weaknesses) contributed, if at all, to the performance of credit ratings for structured finance products leading up and during the financial crisis. If process-related weaknesses contributed to the poor performance of credit ratings for structured finance products, describe whether and, if so, how those weaknesses have been addressed.
2. Provide data on the number of credit ratings for structured finance products initially determined by each NRSRO each year for the last ten years or identify sources of information where that data can be located. If possible, provide data for each asset class of structured finance products identified above.
3. Describe the potential conflicts of interest in the issuer-pay model in rating structured finance products. For example, in what ways, if any, does the issuer, underwriter, or sponsor (“arranger”) of the structured finance product paying the NRSRO to determine the credit rating create conflicts of interest? What are the potential impacts on the NRSRO and the credit ratings issued from these conflicts of interest? Also, compare the potential conflicts in rating structured finance products with the potential conflicts in rating other classes of obligors, securities, or money
4. Is there empirical data, studies, or other information that the issuer-pay conflict of interest influenced credit ratings issued by NRSROs? If so, identify and describe any such data, studies, or other information. For example, is there empirical data, studies, or other information that initial credit ratings for structured finance products determined by NRSROs operating under the issuer-pay model are higher than initial credit ratings determined by NRSROs operating under the subscriber-pay model? If so, identify and describe any such data, studies, or other information. In addition, if it can be demonstrated that conflicts influenced the credit ratings for structured finance products, is there empirical data, studies, or other information that market participants understood the impact, by for example, pricing structured finance products differently than other types of securities or money market instruments with identical ratings? If so, identify and describe any such data, studies, or other information.
5. Describe any actions that NRSROs have taken or internal controls that NRSROs have in place, or could take or put in place, to mitigate conflicts of interests in the issuer-pay model.
6. Describe the potential conflicts of interest in the subscriber-pay model in rating structured finance products. Subscriber-paid credit ratings commonly are not made available for free (and, consequently, not broadly disseminated to the marketplace). What impact, if any, does this have on market participants' ability to detect conflicts of interest? In addition, address how the interests of subscribers may create potential incentives to unduly influence an NRSRO in determining a credit rating? For example, does a subscriber's investing limitations (
7. Is there empirical data, studies, or other information that the subscriber-pay conflict of interest influenced credit ratings issued by NRSROs? If so, identify and describe any such data, studies, or other information.
8. Describe any actions that NRSROs have taken or internal controls that NRSROs have in place, or could take or put in place, to mitigate the conflicts of interests in the subscriber-pay model.
9. Compare the types and degree of conflicts of interest presented by the issuer-pay and subscriber-pay models.
10. Does reputational risk mitigate potential conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry? If so, describe how? If not, describe why. In responding to these questions concerning reputational risk, identify and describe any supporting empirical data, studies, or other information.
11. NRSROs as such did not become subject to registration and oversight requirements until June 2007.
12. Would government efforts to reduce investor reliance on credit ratings such as through provisions in Sections 939 and 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act mitigate the potential conflicts of interest in the rating of structured finance products? If so, how? Would the Section 15E(w) System have the potential to increase or mitigate the impact of other efforts to reduce investor reliance on credit ratings?
13. Describe the benefits of the current process for determining credit ratings for structured finance products. For example, what are the incentives under the current processes to produce accurate credit ratings? In addition, are there benefits in allowing the arranger to select the NRSRO to determine a credit rating for a structured finance product? For example, do arrangers select NRSROs based on their knowledge of which NRSROs investors will accept as issuing credible credit ratings? In addition, do arrangers select NRSROs based on their knowledge of which NRSROs have the resources, capacity, and technical competence to determine credit ratings for the structured finance product they are intending to bring to market, or, do arrangers select an NRSRO because they believe it will give them the highest rating?
14. The Section 15E(w) System would apply only to structured finance products. What are the differences, if any, between structured finance products and other products NRSROs rate? Do these differences warrant a
The Section 15E(w) System, among other things, would require the Commission to: (1) Establish a Credit Rating Agency Board (“CRA Board”), which would be an SRO; (2) select the initial members of the CRA Board; and (3) establish a schedule to ensure that the CRA Board begins assigning qualified NRSROs (“Qualified NRSROs”) to provide initial ratings not later than one year after the selection of the members of the CRA Board.
An issuer that seeks an initial credit rating for a structured finance product would be prohibited from requesting such a rating from an NRSRO and, instead, be required to submit a request for the initial credit rating to the CRA Board.
The CRA Board would be required to prescribe rules by which it evaluates the performance of each Qualified NRSRO, including rules that require, at a minimum, an annual evaluation of each Qualified NRSRO.
The Commission requests comments, proposals, data, or analysis that could assist in analyzing the Section 15E(w) System. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions and, to the extent that responses would differ based on whether the CRA Board is an SRO, a public utility, or private utility, please explain the differences.
1. Identify and describe the benefits of implementing the Section 15E(w) System.
2. Identify and describe the costs of implementing the Section 15E(w) System.
3. Evaluate the Section 15E(w) System using the GAO Framework by addressing the following factors:
a.
b.
i. How would the system create or distort economic incentives for NRSROs to produce quality ratings over the life of a security?
ii. To what extent, if any, would the system create political or other influences that potentially could cause an NRSRO to consider factors other than the credit characteristics of the structured finance product when determining a credit rating for the product?
iii. How would NRSRO performance be evaluated and by whom under the system? For example, would the system rely on market forces or third parties to evaluate performance? Would the system rely on evaluations of performance by the CRA Board that assigns NRSROs to provide ratings? How would “quality” credit ratings be defined and what criteria would be used to assess ratings performance?
iv. When an NRSRO demonstrates poor performance, what would be the economic consequences under the system and who would determine those consequences? For example, how would an NRSRO's compensation or opportunity for future ratings business be linked to ratings performance?
c.
i. In which ways would the system encourage NRSROs to compete? To what extent would the system encourage competition around the quality of ratings, ratings fees, and product innovation? To what extent would NRSROs with higher-quality ratings be rewarded with additional ratings business? For example, once an NRSRO is deemed a qualified NRSRO would it be entitled to a
ii. To what extent would the system encourage new entrants and reduce barriers to entry in the industry? Alternatively, to what extent would the system discourage new entrants and increase barriers to entry?
iii. To what extent would the system allow for flexibility in the differing sizes, resources, and specialties of NRSROs?
iv. To what extent would market forces impact ratings fees under the system?
v. To what extent, if any, would the system incentivize NRSROs to compete other than on the basis of the accuracy and quality of their ratings?
d.
e.
i. Would the system be easily implemented? If not, how difficult would implementing the system be?
ii. Could the system be instituted through existing regulatory or statutory authority or is additional authority needed?
iii. What would be the costs to implement the system and who would fund them?
iv. Which body would administer the system, and would this be an established body? If not, how would it be created?
v. What, if any, infrastructure would be needed to implement the system? What information technology would be required? Which body would be responsible for developing and maintaining it?
vi. What impact would the system have on bringing new issuances to market and trading on the secondary market?
vii. How many NRSROs would be required for the system to function as intended? How would the exit of an NRSRO from the ratings industry affect the system's feasibility? What impact would the system have on the financial viability of an NRSRO?
f.
i. What role, if any, would market participants have in selecting NRSROs to produce credit ratings, assessing the quality of credit ratings, and determining NRSRO compensation? More specifically, what would the roles of issuers and investors be in these processes? Where would these roles differ between the Section 15E(w) System and other potential programs and what would be the trade-offs? Would all market participants be likely to accept the credit ratings produced under the Section 15E(w) System? If not, what would be the potential consequences for the securitization market?
ii. What impact, if any, would the system have on each market participant using the credit ratings?
iii. Would market participation need to be mandated, and if so, for which participants?
iv. To what extent, if any, might market participants discount the quality and reliability of a credit rating based on the system's approach to selecting which Qualified NRSRO would rate a structured finance product?
g.
i. Would the system provide for an independent internal control function?
ii. What external oversight (from a regulator or third-party auditor) would the system provide to ensure it is working as intended? In what ways would the CRA Board be held accountable for its decisions?
iii. If third-party auditors would provide external oversight with respect to the system, how would they be selected, what would be their reporting responsibilities, and to whom would they report?
iv. Who would compensate the regulatory or third-party auditor for auditing the system? How would the compensation for the regulator/auditor
v. To what extent would a third-party auditor allow flexibility in oversight to accommodate NRSROs of different sizes?
4.
a. Under the Section 15E(w) System, the CRA Board would be required to assign which NRSRO (from a pool of Qualified NRSROs) is employed to determine the initial credit rating for a structured finance product. Consequently, would the fee a Qualified NRSRO could charge the arranger need to be set by rule? For example, each Qualified NRSRO would be assured of being assigned a percentage of the credit rating business brought to the CRA Board by issuers. Depending on capacity, certain NRSROs may be assigned to determine more credit ratings than other NRSROs. Therefore, in the absence of competitive market forces, would Qualified NRSROs charge unreasonably high fees? If so, what mechanism could be used to determine the reasonable fee? Should, for example, arrangers be able to reject a Qualified NRSRO that charges above market fees? Moreover, would the amount of the fee need to depend on the type of structured finance product being rated or the complexity of the structured finance product? For example, do NRSROs typically charge different fees depending on whether the structured finance product is, for example, an RMBS, a CMBS, a CDO, a CLO, other ABS, an issuance of ABCP, or another type of structured finance product? If so, would it be appropriate to set different fees on each type of structured finance product? In addition, how would fees be determined for new product types? Furthermore, do the fees charged by NRSROs depend on their business models? If so, how would this impact the determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee? In addition, would the amount of the fee need to depend on the complexity of a structured finance product, independently of its type? Finally, do the fees charged by NRSROs depend on the policies and procedures they use to determine credit ratings? If so, how would this impact the determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee?
b. In determining the reasonableness of fees, could the fees charged by NRSROs and other credit rating agencies to rate structured finance products outside the context of the assignment process serve as a benchmark? For example, under the Section 15E(w) System, the issuer, after obtaining an initial credit rating through the assignment process, would be able to obtain additional credit ratings not assigned by the CRA Board. Would the fee charged for these unassigned credit ratings for structured finance products provide a basis to set the fees used for assigned credit ratings? Alternatively, would the fees NRSROs charge to determine other classes of credit ratings such as for financial institutions, corporate issuers, insurance companies, and government issuers provide a basis to set the fees used for the assignment process? How do the fees charged to rate these types of obligors, securities, and money market instruments differ from the fees charged to rate structured finance products?
c. How could the fee setter determine and, thereafter, monitor whether the fee established by rule constitutes an “above market fee” that over-compensates the Qualified NRSRO (potentially imposing unfair costs on issuers that might be passed on to investors) or under-compensates the NRSRO (potentially causing it to devote less resources to determining the credit rating with possible consequences in terms of the quality of the credit rating)?
d. What would be the impact if the fee set by rule was viewed as too low by NRSROs? For example, would NRSROs refuse to apply to be Qualified NRSROs? Or, would too few NRSROs apply to be Qualified NRSROs to implement the program? How would the fee setter determine the appropriate level of fee to attract a sufficient number of NRSROs to the program without imposing greater costs on issuers than would be the case when fees are determined through a competitive process?
e. Could setting fees by rule have negative impacts on the quality of credit ratings? For example, could it reduce incentives for NRSROs to compete based on producing accurate credit ratings?
f. Are there instances where SROs, public utilities, or private utilities set fees between a company and an entity providing a service to the company that could serve as models for how to set reasonable fees for purposes of assigning credit ratings business? If so, describe how the mechanisms these entities use to set reasonable fees could apply in the assigned credit rating context.
g. Provide any other comments, proposals, data, or analysis that could assist in assessing potential mechanisms determining how to set reasonable fees for assigned structured finance credit ratings.
5.
a. Under the 15E(w) System, how should a fee be provided to the Qualified NRSRO selected to determine an initial credit rating for an arranger? For example, should the arranger provide the fee to the CRA Board, which, in turn, would provide the funds to the NRSRO? Would it be appropriate for the CRA Board to receive and disburse funds in this manner? For example, the CRA Board acting as a conduit for the funds could create potential risk in terms of appropriately maintaining custody of the funds, accounting for the funds, and allocating the funds to the Qualified NRSROs. In addition, it would require the CRA Board to have sophisticated operational capabilities in terms of having access to systems to process financial transactions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars between potentially hundreds of arrangers of structured finance products and the Qualified NRSROs. For these reasons, having the CRA Board serve as temporary custodian of the funds paid by arrangers to Qualified NRSROs could substantially increase the costs of operating the CRA Board. Furthermore, if the CRA Board became insolvent, would the arranger or the Qualified NRSRO have a claim for the funds? Would this depend on how much work the NRSRO had performed in terms of determining the initial credit rating? In this regard, should the CRA Board provide the funds to the Qualified NRSRO when the Qualified NRSRO is selected to determine the credit rating or when the Qualified NRSRO issues the initial credit rating? What is the current practice in terms of the timing when arrangers pay NRSROs for determining initial credit ratings? In addition, how
b. Alternatively, should the arranger pay the fee directly to the selected Qualified NRSRO? If so, would this potentially negatively impact the goal of the Section 15E(w) System to address the conflict of interest arising from the issuer-pay model?
c. Should the CRA Board allocate the fee to determine the initial credit rating to the selected Qualified NRSRO over the term of the structured finance product? For example, should 50% of the fee be paid up-front and the balance of the fee be distributed periodically until all the principal and interest outstanding on the structured finance product is paid? Moreover, if the structured finance product goes into default, would it be appropriate to withhold the unpaid balance of the fee from the NRSRO? Would the appropriateness of withholding the fee depend on the initial rating? For example, if the initial rating is in one of the highest categories (
d. How should fees for performing surveillance of credit ratings be addressed under the Section 15E(w) System? For example, should the Qualified NRSRO selected to determine the initial credit rating be allowed to negotiate a surveillance fee directly with the arranger and receive such a fee directly from the arranger? Alternatively, should the fee to determine the initial credit rating include an amount to cover the cost of surveillance? If so, should the CRA Board disburse the surveillance fee to the Qualified NRSRO? If so, when should that distribution take place? In addition, if the Section 15E(w) System only applies to the fee for the initial credit rating, what issues would arise in terms of finding an NRSRO to provide surveillance? For example, if the selected Qualified NRSRO only agreed to provide the initial credit rating, what would happen if the arranger could not find an NRSRO to perform surveillance for a reasonable fee?
e. Provide any other comments, proposals, data, or analysis that could assist in assessing appropriate methods for paying fees to NRSROs.
6.
a. Would investors and other users of credit ratings view credit ratings for structured finance products determined through the CRA Board assignment process as more reliable than other credit ratings and, consequently, perform less analysis themselves before investing in a structured finance product? For example, under the Section 15E(w) System, the CRA Board would determine whether an NRSRO is qualified to issue initial credit ratings with respect to one or more categories of structured finance products. In addition, the CRA Board would be required to conduct an annual evaluation of a Qualified NRSRO to consider, among other things, (1) the surveillance of credit ratings conducted by the Qualified NRSRO after the credit ratings are issued, including, how the rated instruments perform; (2) the accuracy of the ratings as compared to the other NRSROs; and (3) the effectiveness of the methodologies used by the Qualified NRSRO. Would investors view the CRA Board as providing a “stamp of approval” on, or an endorsement of, the credit ratings determined through the assignment process? If the Section 15E(w) System would increase investor reliance on credit ratings, what potential impact would such a consequence have on government efforts to reduce investor reliance on credit ratings such as through provisions in Sections 939 and 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act? For example, would the system cause investors and other users of credit ratings to increase their reliance credit ratings for structured finance products? If so, how much do investors and other users of credit ratings currently rely on credit ratings for structured finance products and how might that level of reliance change if the Section 15E(w) System was implemented?
b. Would the CRA Board, as a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, be susceptible to political pressure in terms of its assignment of credit ratings to Qualified NRSROs or its other responsibilities? In addition, would a Qualified NRSRO assigned to determine a credit rating be susceptible to political pressure to issue a credit rating at a level favored by the CRA Board in order to obtain additional assignments from the CRA Board?
c. Provide any other comments, proposals, data, or analysis that could assist in assessing the extent to which the creation of such a system would be viewed as the creation of moral hazard by the Federal Government.
7.
a. In terms of operational feasibility, what is the likelihood that the number of NRSROs applying to be treated as Qualified NRSROs would be sufficient to achieve the goals of the Section 15E(w) System? For example, how many NRSROs would need to be determined to be Qualified NRSROs for the system to operate as envisioned? What would
b. In terms of operational feasibility, what level of staffing would be necessary for the CRA Board to carry out its responsibilities? In addition, what would be the necessary expertise and qualifications of the CRA Board members and staff to carry out the CRA Board's responsibilities? How could the CRA Board ensure that it has the necessary staffing and that its staff has the necessary expertise and qualifications?
c. In terms of operational feasibility, could the process by which the CRA Board selects a Qualified NRSRO materially delay the issuance of a structured finance product and diminish the quality of the credit ratings determined through the assignment process? For example, how would the CRA Board monitor which Qualified NRSROs have current capacity to undertake the determination of a credit rating sought by an arranger? If the CRA Board selects a Qualified NRSRO that refuses to rate the structured finance product because, for example, it has reached its capacity to determine initial credit ratings, how long would it take for the CRA Board to select another Qualified NRSRO? In addition, how would the CRA Board address situations where a Qualified NRSRO misjudges its ability to undertake the assignment to determine an initial credit rating? For example, the Qualified NRSRO, in order to increase revenues, might agree to more assignments than it is capable of handling or to an assignment to rate a type of structured finance product it does not have the technical expertise to rate. Could this circumstance potentially put the arranger in a situation where it must wait far longer to obtain a credit rating than would normally be the case because the Qualified NRSRO spends time attempting to determine the initial credit rating before ultimately refusing the assignment? Moreover, could the quality of the credit ratings determined through the assignment process be compromised because the Qualified NRSRO devotes fewer resources to rating structured finance products in order to accept more assignments or accepts an assignment to rate a type of structured finance product for which it lacks adequate technical expertise? If so, how could these issues be addressed?
d. In terms of operational feasibility, how would the CRA Board under the Section 15E(w) System perform the annual evaluation of each qualified NRSRO? Would an annual evaluation be sufficient to determine which Qualified NRSROs are selected on an on-going basis to determine initial credit ratings? For example, what if a Qualified NRSRO undergoes material changes between evaluations that would impact its ability to determine credit ratings? How would this be brought to the CRA Board's attention?
e. In terms of market effects, how would the Section 15E(w) System impact the securitization markets? For example, how would it impact the origination of residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, commercial loans, credit card receivables, auto loans, auto leases, dealer floor-plans, student loans, consumer loans, consumer leases, equipment loans, equipment leases, asset-backed commercial paper, or any other financial assets that are securitized? For example, would the uncertainty over which Qualified NRSRO would be selected to determine the initial credit rating or when the initial credit rating might be issued cause originators to finance the origination of these assets through means other than securitizing them? If so, what would be the implications for these markets? For example, would it cause originators to extend less credit? If so, how would this impact the economy? Alternatively, would the 15E(w) System give investors greater confidence in the integrity of credit ratings for structured finance products? Would that increased confidence facilitate the flow of credit?
f. In terms of legal feasibility, would the establishment of a CRA Board to assign credit ratings for structured finance products raise legal issues under the U.S. Constitution? Please provide legal analysis explaining any such issues.
g. In terms of legal feasibility, would the role of the Commission in overseeing the CRA Board raise legal issues? Please provide legal analysis explaining any such issues?
h. In terms of legal feasibility, do the securities laws provide the Commission with authority to implement the Section 15E(w) System? Interested parties who believe existing authority is sufficient to implement such a system should provide legal analysis supporting their conclusions, including identifying relevant statutory authority. Interested parties who believe existing authority is not sufficient to implement such a system should provide legal analysis supporting their conclusions. In addition, interested parties are encouraged to recommend statutory amendments that could provide the authority necessary for the Commission to implement such a system.
i. In terms of the potential to mitigate conflicts, would a Qualified NRSRO assigned to determine a credit rating for a structured finance product under the Section 15E(w) System potentially have the incentive to provide a favorable credit rating to obtain future business from arrangers to determine credit ratings outside the process of the Section 15E(w) System? The Commission notes that under the Section 15E(w) System an arranger can obtain additional credit ratings from NRSROs after obtaining an initial credit rating through the CRA Board selection process. If this potential conflict would be in the Section 15E(w) System, how could it be addressed? Would the annual evaluations of the Qualified NRSROs by the CRA Board, as required under the Section 15E(w) Provisions, identify an NRSRO that was unduly influenced by this conflict?
j. In terms of the potential to mitigate conflicts, would an arranger be able to select more favorable credit ratings (“rating shop”) notwithstanding the implementation of the Section 15E(w) System? If so, how?
k. In terms of the potential to mitigate conflicts, to what extent, if any, might market participants be able to create securities or money market instruments, or otherwise finance the assets underlying or linked to a structured finance product, so that the transaction does not fit within the definition of “structure finance product” and thereby avoid having to submit the deal to Section 15E(w) System? In addition, how would it be determined whether products fall within the definition of “structured finance product”?
l. Provide any other comments, proposals, data, or analysis that could assist in assessing Constitutional or other issues concerning the establishment of such a system.
8.
a. How should the performance of credit ratings be measured in terms of accuracy?
b. Section 3(a)(60) of the Exchange Act defines the term “credit rating” to mean “an assessment of the creditworthiness of an obligor as an entity or with respect to specific securities or money market instruments.”
c. Could the definition of “accuracy” be based on whether the structured finance product goes into default? For example, defaults may be very rare for some classes of structured finance products. For these classes, how would a definition of “accuracy” based on default work?
d. Depending on how an interested party defines “accuracy,” what metrics could be used to measure accuracy? For example, could transition and default rates be used to measure accuracy? With respect to transition and default rates, how would their effectiveness in measuring the “accuracy” of the credit ratings be impacted by favorable or benign economic conditions? For example, in favorable economic conditions the ratings for structured finance products may remain stable and the number of defaults may be statistically insignificant.
e. Over what time horizons should the accuracy of credit ratings be measured? For example, should it be measured over a period of years, or the life of the securities? Should ratings be evaluated for accuracy at specific points in time? If accuracy should be evaluated at specific points in time, should those times relate to events experienced by the security, or be unrelated to the security (
f. Could the method of measuring accuracy create disincentives for Qualified NRSROs to determine credit ratings for certain types of products? For example, could Qualified NRSROs refuse to rate structured finance products that are inherently more volatile in terms of potential credit risk? If so, how could this impact capital formation?
g. Provide any other comments, proposals, data, or analysis that could assist in assessing the range of metrics that could be used to determine the accuracy of credit ratings.
Section 939F(b)(4) requires the Commission's study to address alternative means for compensating NRSROs that would create incentives for accurate credit ratings. Consequently, the Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on any potential alternatives to the Section 15E(w) System. In this regard, several models that would establish alternative means for compensating NRSROs are identified below.
The Commission has adopted requirements codified in Rule 17g-5 designed to create a mechanism for an NRSRO that is not hired to determine a credit rating for a structured finance product to nonetheless obtain the same information the hired NRSRO receives from the arranger to determine the initial credit rating and at the same time such information is provided to the hired NRSRO (the “Rule 17g-5 Program”).
The Rule 17g-5 Program operates by requiring an NRSRO hired to determine initial credit ratings for structured finance products to maintain a password-protected Internet Web site containing a list of each such structured finance product for which it currently is in the process of determining an initial credit rating.
In addition, the hired NRSRO must obtain a written representation from the arranger of the structured finance product that the NRSRO can reasonably rely on.
The Commission notes that the Rule 17g-5 Program is but one aspect of the current registration and oversight program for NRSROs designed to address conflicts of interest, including provisions designed to promote transparency and competition. Among other things, NRSROs currently are required to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address conflicts of interest that can arise from their business.
The Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on whether the Rule 17g-5 Program provides a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions:
1. Interested parties are asked to provide a comparative evaluation of the Section 15E(w) System with the Rule 17g-5 Program using the GAO Framework.
2. If an interested party believes the Rule 17g-5 Program would not be a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals, could the Rule 17g-5 Program be modified to bridge the gap? If so, describe how? In addition, identify any additional benefits and costs that would result from such modifications.
3. To the extent not addressed in responding to the questions above, describe how the Rule 17g-5 Program currently is being used to determine credit ratings for structured finance products. For example, is there sufficient time between when information about a pending transaction is posted on the arranger's Internet Web site and the transaction closes for an NRSRO not hired to rate the structured finance product to determine an initial credit rating? If not, how could this issue be addressed to provide a sufficient amount of time? For example, should there be a mandatory time period before a credit rating can be issued by the hired NRSRO? In addition, are NRSROs seeking to determine unsolicited credit ratings using the Rule 17g-5 Program being asked to agree to terms and conditions that are not required of the hired NRSROs? If so, what is the rationale for requiring such different terms and conditions?
Under the Investor-Owned Credit Rating Agency Model, sophisticated investors would establish and operate an NRSRO that would produce credit ratings for structured finance products.
The Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on whether the
1. Interested parties are asked to provide a comparative evaluation of the Section 15E(w) System with the Investor-Owned Credit Rating Agency Model using the GAO Framework.
2. If an interested party believes the Investor-Owned Credit Rating Agency Model would be a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals, explain how such a program could be implemented by the Commission. Could investors be required to participate? Should they be required to participate? In addition, analyze whether the Commission could implement such a program using existing authority in the securities laws or whether statutory amendments would be necessary. Finally, identify the benefits and costs of implementing such a program.
Under the Stand-Alone Model, an NRSRO would be compensated through transaction fees imposed on original issuance and on secondary market transactions.
The Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on whether the Stand-Alone Model provides a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions:
1. Interested parties are asked to provide a comparative evaluation of the Section 15E(w) System with the Stand-Alone Model using the GAO Framework.
2. If an interested party believes the Stand-Alone Model would be a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals, explain how such a program could be implemented by the Commission. In addition, analyze whether the Commission could implement such a program using existing authority in the securities laws or whether statutory amendments would be necessary. Finally, identify the benefits and costs of implementing such a program.
Under the designation model, all NRSROs would have the option of rating a new structured finance product issuance, and security holders would direct, or designate, fees to the NRSROs of their choice, based on the proportion of securities that they owned.
The Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on whether the Designation Model provides a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions:
1. Interested parties are asked to provide a comparative evaluation of the Section 15E(w) System with the Designation Model using the GAO Framework.
2. If an interested party believes the Designation Model would be a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals, explain how such a program could be implemented by the Commission. In addition, analyze whether the Commission could implement such a program using existing authority in the securities laws or whether statutory amendments would be necessary. Finally, identify the benefits and costs of implementing such a program.
Under the User-Pay Model, issuers would not pay for credit ratings of structured finance products.
The Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on whether the User-Pay Model provides a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions:
1. Interested parties are asked to provide a comparative evaluation of the Section 15E(w) System with the User-Pay Model using the GAO Framework.
2. If an interested party believes the User-Pay Model would be a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals, explain how such a program could be implemented by the Commission. In addition, analyze whether the Commission could implement such a program using existing authority in the securities laws or whether statutory amendments would be necessary.
Interested parties are encouraged to identify any other model that could serve as a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals.
The Commission requests interested parties to provide comments, proposals, data, and analysis on any other model that they believe would provide a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals. In addition, the Commission requests comments, proposals, data, and analysis in response to the following questions:
1. Interested parties are asked to provide a comparative evaluation of the Section 15E(w) System with the other model.
2. If an interested party believes the other model would be a reasonable alternative to the Section 15E(w) System in terms of objectives and goals, explain how such a program could be implemented by the Commission. In addition, analyze whether the Commission could implement such a program using existing authority in the securities laws or whether statutory amendments would be necessary. Finally, identify the benefits and costs of implementing such a program.
All interested parties are invited to submit their views, in writing, on these questions.
By the Commission.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, e-mail, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, E-mail address:
Social Security Administration, DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400, E-mail address:
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 15, 2011. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
1.
2.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them within 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 15, 2011. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
1.
2.
3.
4.
In November 2010, we requested emergency OMB clearance for a new SSA-44 to fulfill the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148), which mandates reductions in the Federal Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage subsidies, resulting in higher premiums for those who have this coverage and who have income above a specific threshold. The provisions of the law became effective January 1, 2011, and we obtained emergency clearance for this form on November 23, 2010. We are now seeking full OMB clearance for this form. The respondents are Medicare Part B and prescription drug coverage recipients and enrollees with modified adjusted gross income over a high-income threshold who experience one of the eight significant life-changing events.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Badruddin Haqqani, also known as Atiqullah, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by June 15, 2011.
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-2011-0135.
Heather Contrino, 202-366-5060, or Erica Interrante, 202-366-5048, Office of Transportation Policy Studies, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Next Generation of Travel study, being performed through the agency's Office of Transportation Policy Studies, will examine existing and future travel patterns, as well as how new vehicle and transportation-related technologies affect generations and the future of personal travel.
Certain generational implications on transportation that FHWA will be exploring include the following: mode choice, trip type and rates, travel time and distances, vehicle ownership and characteristics, vehicle occupancy, vehicle availability, travel costs, personal income, worker status, home and work location, life cycle, internet usage and telecommuting.
FHWA will be conducting a series of focus groups with individuals in the U.S. to gain additional understanding into the travel activities, choices and views of transportation by the traveling public. The focus groups will provide important information about the next several generations of travelers, playing a critical role in informing the outcomes of the data analysis, the accuracy of the traveler profiles, and other new or emerging norms and perspectives not identified in previous work. The information collected will also be used to identify new and emerging travel behavior, perspectives and social norms not covered through statistical analysis. This is the first time that FHWA will be conducting a study on this topic.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2011.
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,
A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's telephone number is (202) 493-0524 and e-mail address is
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, NHTSA previously conducted a public meeting and opened a docket for a 60-day comment period. Based upon comments at the public meeting and to the docket, NHTSA revised its research plan. This notice announces that the ICR abstracted below has been forwarded to OMB for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. This is a request for new collection.
NHTSA will conduct two research phases. For the first phase, NHTSA will conduct two types of qualitative research. One research project will consist of two (2) focus groups in three (3) cities. Each group will have eight (8) participants and will last two (2) hours for a total of 96 participant hours. (72 potential respondents will be contacted for initial screening calls to determine the actual focus group participants. Calls should not be more than 10 minutes each for an estimated 12 burden hours.) This is the project which is the subject of this notice. For the second research project in this phase, NHTSA will conduct on-site interviews at various tire retailers. NHTSA anticipates 30 respondents, with each interview taking 30 minutes for a total of approximately 15 participant hours. This project is addressed by a separate notice published today. The results of both projects in this research phase will be used to finalize the content of an online survey NHTSA will conduct in the second research phase.
On September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54217), NHTSA published the required 60-day notice requesting comments on both projects in the first research phase.
The estimated annual burden hour for the focus groups is 108 hours. Based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' median hourly wage (all occupations) in the May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it will take an average of $15.95 per hour for professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and print material. Therefore, the agency estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is $1,722.60 ($15.95 per hour × 108 burden hours).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2011.
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: NHTSA Desk Officer.
A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's telephone number is (202) 493-0524 and e-mail address is
In compliance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, NHTSA previously conducted a public meeting and opened a docket for a 60-day comment period. Based upon comments at the public meeting and to the docket, NHTSA revised its research plan. This notice announces that the ICR abstracted below has been forwarded to OMB for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. This is a request for new collection.
NHTSA will conduct two research phases. For the first phase, NHTSA will conduct two types of qualitative research. One research project will consist of two (2) focus groups in three (3) cities. Each group will have eight (8) participants and will last two (2) hours for a total of 96 participant hours. This project is addressed by a separate notice published today. For the second research project in this phase, NHTSA will conduct on-site interviews at various tire retailers. NHTSA anticipates 30 respondents, with each interview taking 30 minutes for a total of approximately 15 participant hours. This is the project which is the subject of this notice. The results of both projects in this research phase will be used to finalize the content of an online survey NHTSA will conduct in the second research phase.
On September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54217), NHTSA published the required 60-day notice requesting comments on both projects in the first research phase.
The estimated annual burden hour for the retailer interviews is 15 hours. Based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' median hourly wage (all occupations) in the May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it will take an average of $15.95 per hour for professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and print material.