Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Utilities Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule suspends the marketing order for Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states (order), and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder, through March 1, 2014. The order regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states and is administered locally by the Southeastern Potato Committee (Committee). The Committee believes advances in farming technology and production quality have reduced the need for the order. When considering the costs associated with continuing the order, the Committee unanimously recommended that the order be suspended.
Effective June 13, 2011 through March 1, 2014; comments received by August 9, 2011 will be considered prior to adoption as a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Dawana J. Clark, Marketing Specialist, or Kenneth G. Johnson, Regional Manager, DC Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (301) 734-5243, Fax: (301) 734-5275, or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Laurel May, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 104 and Marketing Order No. 953, both as amended (7 CFR part 953), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule suspends the order and all provisions prescribed thereunder through March 1, 2014. The suspension includes, but is not limited to, grade, size, quality, assessment, reporting, and inspection requirements. The Committee believes advances in farming technology and production quality have reduced the need for the order. When considering the costs associated with continuing the order, the Committee agreed that the order should be suspended. The Committee met on February 17, 2011, and unanimously recommended suspending the order for three years, through to March 1, 2014.
The order was promulgated in 1948, and regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in designated counties of Virginia and North Carolina. The order has been used to provide the industry with grade, size, quality, and inspection requirements. The order also authorizes reporting and recordkeeping functions required for the operation of the order. The program is funded by assessments imposed on handlers.
Over the past several years, the Southeastern potato industry has been in decline, with acreage and production trending downward. Production has fallen from an estimated 1,600,000 hundredweight for the 1996-97 season, to a current estimate of 600,000 hundredweight for the 2010-11 season. In 1996, there were approximately 150 growers and 60 handlers in the production area. Currently, there are approximately 20 growers and 10 handlers covered in the production area.
The Committee met February 17, 2011, to discuss the continued need for the order. During the discussion, several members mentioned that the order was promulgated at a time when the industry was having an issue with the quality of potatoes being produced. The purpose of the order was to establish standards to improve the quality of marketed product.
Since the implementation of the order, the quality of Southeastern potatoes has greatly improved. Advances in farm machinery and improvements in the grading process have helped to ensure that only quality product is being shipped to buyers. Concerns the industry previously had prior to implementation of the order are no longer an issue, and for the past several years, some industry members have started questioning the continued need for the order and its associated costs.
At the meeting, members were informed that to maintain the order, the Committee would have to incur some additional administrative expenses. To cover these costs, the Committee would need to increase the assessment rate. Committee members agreed that the industry would not support an assessment increase.
In addition to the assessment costs, comments were also made regarding the cost of inspection required under the order. It was stated that some industry members see the cost of mandatory inspection as an unnecessary burden. Other Committee members expressed concern over whether inspection would still be available if the order was suspended. This issue was resolved when members were assured that inspection would still be available for those who request it, regardless of the status of the order.
Based on discussion at the meeting, and on letters from growers who were not able to attend, changes in the industry and industry practices have diminished the need for the order. Further, there are concerns regarding the costs associated with maintaining the order, and no industry support for raising assessments to cover increasing administrative costs. Therefore, the Committee unanimously recommended suspending the order for three years, through to March 1, 2014.
The Committee recommended suspension of the order, not termination, to allow the industry an opportunity to review the effectiveness of operating without order requirements. If problems develop, Committee members wanted the industry to have the alternative of reactivating the order. During the suspension period, the industry will be able to monitor the Southeastern potato industry to determine if quality issues reoccur. A meeting will be held prior to March 1, 2014, to review the state of the industry and determine whether to continue the suspension, or to reactivate or terminate the order.
It is hereby determined that Federal Marketing Order No. 953, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. This action suspends, through March 1, 2014, the provisions of Federal Marketing Order No. 953, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, including but not limited to: Provisions of the order dealing with the establishment and the responsibilities of the Committee; provisions of the order dealing with expenses and the collection of assessments; all rules and regulations; and, all information collection and reporting requirements.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 10 handlers of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 20 potato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Using AMS Market News Service reported prices, the average f.o.b. price for Southeastern potatoes for the 2010 marketing season was around $20 per hundredweight. The Committee estimated production for the 2010-11 season at approximately 600,000 hundredweight of potatoes. Based on this information, average annual receipts for handlers would be less than $7,000,000. Information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service indicates that the average producer price for Irish potatoes grown in North Carolina and Virginia in 2010 was approximately $11.63 per hundredweight. Considering estimated production, average producer revenue would be about $350,000 for the 2010-11 season. Therefore, the majority of Southeastern potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule suspends the order and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder through March 1, 2014. The Committee believes advances in farming technology and production quality have reduced the need for the order. When considering the costs associated with continuing the order, the Committee unanimously recommended that the order be suspended. The Committee made this recommendation on February 17, 2011. Authority for this action is provided in section 8c(16)(A) of the Act.
Suspension of the order and its corresponding regulations relieves handlers of quality, inspection, and assessment burdens during the suspension period. Also, handler reports will not be required. Additionally, growers may be relieved of some costs, such as assessment expenses, which are often passed onto them by handlers. Suspension of the order is therefore expected to reduce the regulatory burden on handlers and growers of all sizes.
The Committee considered alternatives to this rule, including maintaining the order or terminating it rather than suspending. Support was not shown for either of these options. Therefore these alternatives were rejected.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Southeastern potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
AMS 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.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Southeastern potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 17, 2011 meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on the suspension of all provisions prescribed under the marketing order for Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that the order suspended by this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that revised the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2010-2011 marketing year. The interim rule increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 980,220 pounds to 1,118,639 pounds, and the allotment percentage from 43 percent to 50 percent. This change is expected to balance the supply of Native spearmint oil produced in the Far West with market needs and to promote market stability.
Effective June 13, 2011.
Barry Broadbent, Marketing Specialist or Gary Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA;
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2010-2011 marketing year were established in a final rule published in the
Early in the 2010-2011 marketing year, however, the spearmint industry reported to the Committee that the real demand for Native spearmint oil was greater than the level that was initially projected. The Committee subsequently recommended revising the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint to allow the market to satisfy the increased demand.
In an interim rule published in the
This final rule continues in effect the action that revised the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2010-2011 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2011. Therefore, the Native spearmint oil salable quantity of 1,118,639 pounds and the allotment percentage of 50 percent remains in effect through the end of the 2010-2011 marketing year.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 38 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 84 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 19 of the 38 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 84 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.
The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil-producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted to spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, most spearmint oil-producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses.
Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and as such are more at risk to market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual crop and do not have the luxury of having other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support the operation for a period of time. Being reasonably assured of a stable price and market provides small producing entities with the ability to maintain proper cash flow and to meet annual expenses. Thus, the market and price stability provided by the order potentially benefit the small producer more than such provisions benefit large producers. Even though a majority of handlers and producers of spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities, the volume control feature of this order has small entity orientation.
This rule continues in effect the action that revised the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2010-2011 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2011. The Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage is increased to 1,118,639 pounds and 50 percent, respectively, for the 2010-2011 marketing year.
The use of volume control regulation allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Volume control is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and likely does not result in fewer retail sales of such products. The marketing order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry for nearly three decades and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the November 19, 2010, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before March 28, 2011. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change. To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.
The affected section of part 985 does not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DHS.
Notice of suspension of applicability of certain requirements.
This notice informs the public of the suspension of certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Libya and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Libya since February 2011. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking action to provide relief to these F-1 students so they may obtain employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain their F-1 student status. F-1 students who are granted employment authorization by means of this notice will be deemed to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the duration of their employment authorization, provided that they satisfy the minimum course load requirement described in this notice. This suspension of certain regulatory requirements will automatically terminate on December 31, 2011, without further notice.
This notice is effective June 10, 2011 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2011.
Louis Farrell, Director, Student and Exchange Visitor Program; MS 5600, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20536-5600; (703) 603-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Program information can be found at
The Secretary of Homeland Security is exercising her authority under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9) to temporarily suspend the applicability of certain requirements governing on-campus and off-campus employment. F-1 students granted employment authorization by means of this notice will be deemed to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the duration of their employment authorization if they satisfy the minimum course load set forth in this notice.
This notice applies exclusively to F-1 students whose country of citizenship is Libya and who were lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status on February 1, 2011 under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) and (1) are enrolled in an institution that is Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certified for enrollment for F-1 students; (2) are currently maintaining F-1 status; and (3) are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Libya since February 2011.
This notice applies to both undergraduate and graduate students, as well as elementary school, middle school, and high school students. The notice, however, applies differently to elementary school, middle school, and high school students, as discussed in the question “Does this notice apply to elementary school, middle school, and high school students in F-1 status?”
F-1 students covered by this notice who transfer to other academic institutions that are SEVP-certified for enrollment of F-1 students remain eligible for the relief provided by means of this notice.
Further, this notice regarding employment authorization does not impact other eligibility requirements for Federal Work-Study jobs.
This notice grants temporary relief until December 31, 2011 to a specific group of F-1 students whose country of citizenship is Libya. DHS will continue to monitor the situation in Libya. Should the special provisions authorized by this notice need to be modified or extended, DHS will announce such changes in the
DHS is taking action to provide relief to F-1 students whose country of citizenship is Libya and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Libya since February 2011. These students may obtain employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load while continuing to maintain their F-1 status.
Since the government crackdown of protests in the east of the country in February, there has been armed conflict in Libya between loyalists of the current government led by Muammar Qadhafi and opposition forces calling for his departure. Approximately 2,000 F-1 students whose country of citizenship is Libya are enrolled in schools in the United States. Given the current conditions in Libya, affected F-1 students whose primary means of financial support comes from the Libyan Government or family members in Libya may now need to be exempt from the normal student employment requirements to be able to continue their studies in the United States and meet basic living expenses. The suspension of all commercial air travel to Libya, violence and uncertainty at land borders, and an overall lack of security, have made it unfeasible for students to safely return to Libya for the foreseeable future. To ameliorate the hardship arising from the lack of financial support and facilitate the students' continued studies, DHS is suspending the applicability of certain requirements governing on-campus and off-campus employment.
Undergraduate students who are granted on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice must remain registered for a minimum of six semester/quarter hours of instruction per academic term. Graduate-level F-1 students who are granted on-campus or off-campus employment authorization under this notice must remain registered for a minimum of three semester/quarter hours of instruction per academic term.
Yes. Libyan F-1 students who already have on-campus or off-campus employment authorization may benefit under this notice, which suspends regulatory requirements relating to the minimum course load requirement under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(A) and (B) and the employment eligibility requirements under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9) as specified in this notice. Such Libyan F-1 students may benefit without having to apply for a new Form I-766,
Approved for more than 20 hours per week of [DSO must insert “on-campus” or “off-campus,” depending upon the type of employment authorization the student already has] employment authorization and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of employment] until [DSO must insert the student's program end date, December 31, 2011, or the current EAD expiration date (if the student is currently working off campus), whichever date comes first].
No. F-1 students who are granted employment authorization under this notice will be deemed to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the duration of their employment authorization, provided that qualifying undergraduate level F-1 students remain registered for a minimum of six semester/quarter hours of instruction per academic term, and qualifying graduate level F-1 students remain registered for a minimum of three semester/quarter hours of instruction per academic term.
No. An F-2 spouse or minor child of an F-1 student is not authorized to work in the United States and, therefore, may not accept employment under the F-2 status.
No. The suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements only applies to those F-1 students whose country of citizenship is Libya and who were lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status on February 1, 2011 under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) and (1) are enrolled in an institution that is SEVP certified for enrollment of F-1 students; (2) are currently maintaining F-1 status; and (3) are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Libya. F-1 students who do not meet these requirements do not qualify for the suspension of the applicability of the standard regulatory requirements, even if they are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Libya since February 2011.
Yes, provided that the DSO has properly notated the student's SEVIS record, which will then appear on the student's Form I-20. Subject to the specific terms of this notice, the normal rules for visa issuance (including those related to public charge and nonimmigrant intent) remain applicable to nonimmigrants that need to apply for a new F-1 visa in order to continue their educational programs in the United States.
This notice does not reduce the required course load for elementary school, middle school, or high school students in F-1 status. Such students must maintain the minimum number of hours of class attendance per week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward graduation.
Yes. For F-1 students covered in this notice, the Secretary is suspending the applicability of the requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i) that limits an F-1 student's on-campus employment to 20 hours per week while school is in session. A student whose country of citizenship is Libya and who is experiencing severe economic hardship as result of civil unrest in Libya since February 1, 2011 is authorized to work more than 20 hours per week while school is in session if his or her DSO has entered the following statement in the remarks field of the SEVIS student record, which will be reflected on the student's Form I-20:
Approved for more than 20 hours per week of on-campus authorization and reduced course load, under the Special Student Relief authorization from [DSO must insert the beginning date of employment] until [DSO must insert the student's program end date or December 31, 2011, whichever date comes first].
Yes. F-1 students who are granted on-campus employment authorization under this notice will be deemed to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the purpose of maintaining their F-1 status for the duration of their on-campus employment if they satisfy the minimum course load requirement described in this notice.
For F-1 students covered by this notice, as provided under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(A), the Secretary is suspending the following regulatory requirements relating to off-campus employment:
(a) The requirement that a student must have been in F-1 status for one full academic year in order to be eligible for off-campus employment;
(b) The requirement that an F-1 student must demonstrate that acceptance of employment will not interfere with the student's carrying a full course of study; and
(c) The requirement that limits a student's work authorization to no more than 20 hours per week of off-campus employment while school is in session.
Yes. F-1 students who are granted employment authorization by means of this notice will be deemed to be engaged in a “full course of study” for purpose of maintaining their F-1 status for the duration of their employment authorization if they satisfy the minimum course load requirement described in this notice.
F-1 students must file a Form I-765
Recommended for off-campus employment authorization in excess of 20 hours per week and reduced course load under the Special Student Relief authorization from the date of the USCIS authorization noted on Form I-766 until [DSO must insert the program end date or December 31, 2011, whichever date comes first].
The student must then file the properly endorsed Form I-20 and Form I-765, according to the instructions for the Form I-765. The student may begin working off campus only upon receipt of the EAD from USCIS.
(a) The student is in good academic standing as determined by the DSO;
(b) The student is a citizen of Libya and is experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Libya since February 1, 2011, as documented on the Form I-20;
(c) The student is carrying a full course of study at the time of the request for employment authorization;
(d) The student will be registered for the duration of his or her authorized employment for a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if the student is at the undergraduate level, or for a minimum of three semester or quarter hours of instruction per academic term if the student is at the graduate level; and
(e) The off-campus employment is necessary to alleviate severe economic hardship to the individual caused by the civil unrest in Libya since February 1, 2011.
(a) Ensure that the application package includes: (1) A completed Form I-765; (2) the required fee or properly documented fee waiver request as defined in 8 CFR 103.7(c); and (3) a signed and dated copy of the student's Form I-20 with the appropriate DSO recommendation, as previously described in this notice; and
(b) send the application in an envelope which is clearly marked on the front of the envelope, bottom right-hand side, with the phrase “SPECIAL STUDENT RELIEF.” Failure to include this notation may result in significant processing delays. If USCIS approves the student's Form I-765, the USCIS official will send the student a Form I-766 EAD as evidence of his or her employment authorization. The EAD will contain an expiration date that does not exceed the student's program end date.
An F-1 student seeking off-campus employment authorization due to severe
This notice also allows F-1 students whose country of citizenship is Libya and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of civil unrest in Libya since February 1, 2011, to obtain employment authorization, work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce their course load, while continuing to maintain their F-1 student status.
To apply for work authorization an F-1 student must complete and submit currently approved Form I-765 according to the instructions on the form. The authority to collect the information contained on the current Form I-765 has previously been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (OMB Control No. 1615-0040). Although there will be a slight increase in the number of Form I-765 filings because of this notice, the number of filings currently contained in the OMB annual inventory for Form I-765 is sufficient to cover the additional filings. Accordingly, there is no further action required under the PRA.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the meat, poultry products, and egg products regulations pertaining to the schedule of operations. FSIS is amending these regulations to define the 8-hour work day as including time that inspection program personnel need to spend at the workplace donning and doffing required gear, time spent walking to their workstations after donning required gear, and time spent walking from their work stations prior to doffing required gear.
Effective July 11, 2011.
Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700,
The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C. 601
On August 9, 2010, FSIS proposed to amend its regulations pertaining to the schedule of operations. FSIS proposed to define the 8-hour work day as including time that inspection program personnel need to spend at the workplace donning and doffing required gear, time spent walking to their workstations after donning required gear, and time spent walking from their work stations prior to doffing required gear. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS proposed the amendments to administer its inspection program in accord with the Supreme Court's holding in
Specifically, the preamble to the proposed rule explained that this regulatory change is necessary in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) covers (1) any activity that is integral and indispensable to a principal activity; and (2) during a continuous workday, any walking time that occurs after the beginning of the employee's first principal activity and before the end of the employee's last principal activity.
FSIS received 20 comments on the proposed rule from the public, industry, and trade organizations. FSIS also received a letter concerning the proposal from the Department of Labor. Commenters generally supported that FSIS inspection program personnel should be fully compensated for work. However, commenters had varying opinions regarding the Agency's interpretation of
Several comments addressed the Agency's treatment of
The first comment, submitted by the Department of Labor (DOL), argued that whether gear worn by employees is unique or non-unique is irrelevant to whether donning and doffing the gear is a principal, compensable activity. DOL stated that the preamble to the proposed rule incorrectly implied that
On the other hand, a comment submitted by an industry trade organization argued that the time associated with donning and doffing non-unique gear is noncompensable because it is
The comments described above address two distinct concepts that must be considered in turn to determine whether inspection program personnel donning and doffing activities must be compensated under Federal law. The first is: Are inspection program personnel donning and doffing activities integral and indispensable to their principal activity, and therefore covered under the FLSA? The second is: If the donning and doffing activities are covered under the FLSA, are they nevertheless noncompensable because they are
1. FSIS has determined that the FLSA covers time inspectors spend donning and doffing both unique and non-unique gear which they are directed by FSIS or an establishment to don and doff at the workplace in order to provide inspection services.
The Portal-to-Portal Act excludes from FLSA coverage time spent walking to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity of an employee, and activities that are “preliminary or postliminary” to that principal activity. 29 U.S.C. 254(a). In
Accordingly, if donning and doffing is integral and indispensable to inspectors' principal work activity, then it must also be considered a principal activity covered by the FLSA. The classification of gear as unique or non-unique has no bearing on whether the donning and doffing of such gear at the workplace is an integral and indispensable activity. For example, in
In
As the comment from the industry trade organization pointed out, the Supreme Court was not asked to review the Ninth Circuit's holding that donning and doffing were integral and indispensable to the principal activities of the meat slaughter and processing plant employees. However, the Supreme Court did consider the Ninth Circuit's related holding that during a continuous workday, time spent by employees walking to their workstation after donning their required gear was not excluded from the FLSA coverage by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
As was the case with the gear considered in
Because inspection program personnel's donning and doffing activities are integral and indispensable to inspection program personnel's principal activities, under the Supreme Court's ruling in
2. Although inspection program personnel's donning and doffing activities are covered by the FLSA, such activities might still be deemed noncompensable if they fall under the
Whether pre-shift and post-shift activity can be considered
The Supreme Court has reasoned that overtime compensation for “a few seconds or minutes” is de minimis “in light of the realities of the industrial world.”
The first factor, the practical administrative difficulty of recording the additional time for payroll purposes, merits some discussion. FSIS bills federally inspected establishments for inspection services provided in excess of eight hours per shift. At slaughter establishments, carcasses are not permitted to begin passing the post-mortem inspection station on the evisceration line until an FSIS on-line inspector is at his or her post-mortem inspection station, ready to conduct carcass-by-carcass inspection. But inspectors must don and doff their required gear before they begin on-line carcass inspection. As a result, slaughter establishments must know in advance of planning their schedule of operations how much of their eight hours of free inspection services will be used for inspection program personnel donning and doffing activities. For example, if a poultry slaughter establishment does not wish to pay for overtime inspection services, and the establishment knows that inspection program personnel must spend a total of 9 minutes per day conducting FLSA-covered donning, doffing, and walking activities, then the establishment can adjust its slaughter inspection operations accordingly. If it chooses to conduct slaughter operations for a full eight hours, it will incur overtime costs because FSIS will have provided more than 8 hours of inspection services.
In order to inform slaughter establishments how much donning and doffing time to account for as part of their regular eight hours of inspection services, FSIS will need to determine in advance of implementing this rule how much time it actually takes for inspection program personnel to conduct FLSA-covered donning, doffing, and walking activities at each individual slaughter establishment.
The second
The third
The trade organization also argued that the donning and doffing of non-unique gear is always noncompensable in light of an OPM regulation addressing the
Specifically, OPM's rule directs: “If an agency reasonably determines that a preparatory or concluding activity is closely related to an employee's principal activities, and is indispensable to the performance of the principal activities, and that the total time spent in that activity is more than 10 minutes per workday, the agency shall credit all of the time spent in that activity, including the 10 minutes, as hours of work.” 5 CFR 551.412(a)(1).
The trade organization argued that under the OPM rule, preparatory and concluding activities such as inspection program personnel donning and doffing are only compensable when the total time spent in such activities is more than 10 minutes per workday. To the contrary, as the court explained in
Several commenters sought clarification regarding how application of this rule might affect establishment operating schedules.
Because inspection program personnel donning and doffing are principal activities, they will be treated in the same manner as other inspection services. Thus, the new rule specifies that the regular workweek, which consists of five 8-hour days of scheduled inspection service provided without charge, will include donning and doffing activities. Establishments must therefore understand that the 8-hours per scheduled shift of inspection service which they are provided without charge must include the time inspection program personnel need for FLSA-covered donning and doffing activities. At establishments where donning and doffing activities must occur before and after the commencement of on-line, carcass and parts inspection, FSIS will ensure that establishments know how much time inspection program personnel donning and doffing activities take so that those establishments may plan their regular operating schedules accordingly. If establishments require more than 8 hours of inspection service, they must request overtime inspection service as provided in 9 CFR 307.4(d)(3), 9 CFR 381.37(d)(3), and 9 CFR 590.126.
Some industry commenters expressed concern that FSIS would impose a “one-size-fits-all” approach to implementing this regulation by requiring each establishment to schedule the same amount of time for donning and doffing activities. The commenters contended that each establishment is different, and that the required donning, doffing and walking time should reflect the realities of each individual establishment. The commenters also requested that FSIS explain what the phrase “required gear” is intended to include.
FSIS agrees that actual donning, doffing, and walking time will vary in each establishment depending on plant-specific variables. The Agency does not intend to use a one-size-fits-all approach to implement this rule. Some industry commenters misunderstood the proposed rule to state that each establishment must provide 15 minutes for donning, doffing, and walking time. This figure was only used in the context of estimating the cost to industry that may result from this rule.
FSIS agrees with the commenters that post-donning and pre-doffing walk time can vary significantly among establishments. Also, FSIS is aware that inspectors may don and doff some equipment unique to a specific establishment. However, there is equipment that FSIS requires all of its on-line personnel to wear in meat slaughter operations and poultry slaughter operations. The following is the specific gear FSIS requires its employees to wear:
• Hard Hats—FSIS Directive 4791.1, Revision 2, Amendment 2 (5/15/02), the Basic Occupational Health and Safety Program, requires hard hats to be worn.
• Hearing Protection—FSIS Directive 4791.1, Revision 2, Amendment 2 (5/15/02), the Basic Occupational Health and Safety Program, requires hearing protection.
• Cut Resistant and Cover Gloves—FSIS Directive 4791.1, Revision 2, Amendment 2 (5/15/02), the Basic Occupational Health and Safety Program, requires Cut-Resistant Gloves.
• Slaughter Equipment—Knives, hook, steel, and scabbard. This equipment is required to perform postmortem inspection procedures as outlined in FSIS Directive 6100.2 Postmortem Livestock Inspection (9/17/07). Chapter II (pages 5-16) of this directive outlines the required inspection procedures for all species of livestock.
In response to the comment about required gear, FSIS has determined that the FLSA covers time inspectors spend donning and doffing required gear which they are directed by FSIS or an establishment (e.g., hairnets, frocks, or smocks) to don and doff at the workplace in order to provide inspection services.
Although FSIS requires inspection program personnel to wear skid-resistant footwear, FSIS allows them to don and doff this footwear at home. Accordingly, time spent donning and doffing required skid-resistant footwear is generally not compensable. However, if an individual establishment requires inspection program personnel to don and doff footwear at the establishment, then that time would be compensable.
Donning and doffing activities also include time to retrieve, clean, and store equipment to maintain sanitary conditions. Such activities were calculated and included as part of the time study mentioned in the economic analysis for the proposed rule. The letter from DOL also made specific reference to the need to compensate for the time to conduct such activities.
Also, FSIS employees are entitled to their entire lunch period. Donning and doffing activities, as well as walk time, are outside of the lunch period. The donning and doffing activity can differ
After publication of this rule, FSIS will measure the amount of time it takes for on-line inspection program personnel to don and doff all required gear (including before and after the lunch period), walk to and from their workstation, and retrieve, clean, and store equipment to maintain sanitary conditions at each affected meat and poultry slaughter establishment. This cumulative total will give each plant the specific donning, doffing, walking time, retrieving, cleaning, and storage time measurement needed, so that they can account for it in their daily schedule of operations or as overtime. See footnote 1 for the explanation that this time will not be used for payroll purposes. For administrative and scheduling purposes, the time will be rounded up or down to the next whole minute. If an establishment has a concern about the outcome of the time measurements in its facility it can appeal as set out in FSIS's regulations.
Commenters also asked if it would be possible to make changes at their establishment to reduce donning, doffing, and walk time.
Establishments may make facilities adjustments to reduce donning, doffing, and walk times, provided such changes do not affect the sanitary conditions in the establishment or impede inspection.
Several commenters stated that FSIS should not charge for overtime in 15 minute increments but only bill establishments for the actual time inspectors at the establishment take to don, doff, and walk to and from their work station.
As a preliminary matter, compensable donning, doffing, and walking time will not necessarily be overtime. Consistent with current regulations, overtime will only be charged for time inspection program personnel work in excess of eight hours per workday. If an establishment's schedule of operations calls for less than eight hours of on-line inspection time, then any compensable donning, doffing, and walking time may still fit within the normal 8-hour workday. In that case, no overtime charges would result.
On the other hand, if the total workday, including on-line inspection time and compensable donning, doffing, and walking time, exceeds eight hours per workday, then all time in excess of eight hours will be charged as overtime as set forth in 9 CFR 307.6. This regulation establishes that for billing purposes, eight or more minutes shall be considered a full quarter hour. Also, the National Finance Center, which is tasked with processing our bill documents, can only bill in 15 minute increments.
FSIS received comments from Federal veterinarians stating that the proposed rule concerning donning and doffing is too limited because it does not include all personnel that must be prepared and on the line when operations start, in particular Public Health Veterinarians and Supervisory Public Health Veterinarians.
The new regulations include donning, doffing, and walking time as activities that are within an FSIS inspection personnel's 8-hour work-day. This would apply to any FSIS inspection program personnel, including FSIS veterinarians, who are required to don and doff and be at an inspection station on the line at the start of a shift. In general, FSIS Veterinarians, off-line inspectors, supervisory consumer safety inspectors, inspectors in processing facilities, and inspectors working in egg product plants are not required to be at an inspection workstation at start of or at the end of a shift. Note that for inspectors who are required to come in early, such as for pre-operational inspection, their donning, doffing, and walking time must also be accounted for.
Therefore, this regulatory change has no impact on their working conditions, unless they have to perform on-line duties in order for the establishment's line to start operating.
The letter that FSIS received from DOL stated that the proposed regulation would define the proposed 8-hour workday as including “the necessary time for FSIS inspection program personnel to put on required gear and walk to a work station and the necessary time for FSIS inspection program personnel to return from a work station and remove required gear. * * *” DOL requested that the word necessary be eliminated from the final regulation because it could be read to suggest something less than the actual time taken while performing such tasks.
FSIS agrees with DOL that the actual time spent donning and doffing and the associated walk times are inspection activities that fall into the 8-hour workday. FSIS will know how much donning and doffing and walk time there is at each establishment as discussed above. FSIS believes this approach will ensure that FSIS employees are fully compensated as required by the FLSA. Therefore, to more accurately reflect that donning, doffing, and walk time are part of the inspector's 8-hour workday, FSIS has eliminated the word necessary from the final version of the regulation.
Consistent with the proposed rule, FSIS is amending 9 CFR 307.4(c), 381.37(c), and 590.124 to provide that the eight hours of inspection service includes the time for inspection program personnel to put on required gear and walk to a work station and the time for inspection program personnel to return from a work station and remove required gear. Any time over those eight hours is overtime charged to an establishment. The only change, as discussed above, is to remove the word necessary from the regulatory language.
For egg product plants, FSIS's regulations at 9 CFR 590.124 define the normal operating schedule as consisting of a continuous 8-hour period per day (excluding not to exceed 1 hour for lunch) 5 consecutive days per week. FSIS does not believe additional time for donning and doffing will typically be necessary for inspection program personnel in egg product plants because inspection program personnel at those plants do not need to be at a required station for operations to begin. To ensure compliance with the applicable law and OPM guidance, however, the Agency is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.124 to define the 8-hour work day as including the time for inspection
This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 and was determined to be significant.
The FSIS cost estimate in this final rule remains similar to that of the proposed rule, but has been updated to reflect final FSIS overtime rates for FY 2011 and FY 2012.
Under this final rule, the most direct cost to the industry will be the overtime fee that the Agency will need to charge establishments for the time inspection program personnel spend donning required gear, walking to a work station, returning from a work station, and doffing required gear. If meat and poultry slaughter establishments want to maintain their normal shift length of operating for eight hours, they will incur some overtime fees. The choice is voluntary. Some meat and poultry slaughter establishments may choose not to incur the overtime charges if they expect that the decline in revenues from operating for a shorter amount of time will be smaller than the overtime fee cost. However, the Agency expects that most large meat and poultry slaughter establishments will choose to pay the overtime charge and maintain their current shift-time, as shortening the shift time will decrease production and revenue while idling existing capacity.
The actual time FSIS inspection program personnel will take to don and doff required gear will vary in each meat and poultry slaughter establishment depending on plant-specific variables. In response to comments on the proposed rule, FSIS has decided, as discussed above, that it will measure the amount of time it takes for inspection program personnel to don and doff all required gear, walk to and from their workstation, and retrieve, clean, and store equipment to maintain sanitary conditions. See footnote 1 for the explanation that this time will not be used for payroll purposes.
For the purpose of its analysis, FSIS is using 15 minutes for donning, doffing, and walking time at all meat and poultry slaughter establishments as a reasonably conservative estimate for both poultry and livestock inspectors. The overtime fee that the Agency charges for 15 minutes is $16.88 and $17.16 for FY 2011 and 2012, respectively.
FSIS calculated these costs for the meat and poultry slaughter establishments because carcasses are not permitted to begin passing the post-mortem inspection station on the evisceration line until an FSIS on-line inspector is at his or her post-mortem inspection station, ready to conduct carcass and parts inspection.
This regulatory change should not impact the schedule of operations for meat and poultry processing establishments and egg product plants because those establishments can begin operations without FSIS inspection program personnel being at an on-line inspection work station. Furthermore, very-small slaughter establishments typically will not be affected by this rule because of the nature of how slaughter is conducted in very-small establishments. Many of the inspectors at such establishments are on patrol assignments, inspectors typically drive up to the establishment, go into the establishment and simply put on their frock.
The most recent Agency data shows that there are 1,041 meat and poultry slaughter establishments, of which 263 are small and 566 are very small (by Small Business Administration size standards.)
FSIS started by calculating the number of inspection program personnel that this proposed rule will affect. Agency data show that there are 2,911 inspection program personnel in the poultry and meat slaughter establishments—1,954 in poultry and 957 in meat. Assuming all the establishments pay the 15-minute overtime charge per inspection program personnel, and that the establishments operate 260 days (5 days a week times 52 weeks), the annual cost for one on-line inspector will be about $4,389 at the FY 2011 rate. The total cost to the industry will be about $12.8 million and $13.0 million in FY 2011 and 2012, respectively (see Table 1). Given that the annual revenue of the meat slaughtering industry alone in 2009 is about $67.2 billion,
The industry is likely to pass the increased costs on to consumers because of the inelastic nature of the consumer demand for meat and poultry products. However, given that the total volume of meat and poultry slaughtered under Federal inspection in 2009 was about 91 billion pounds,
This rule will ensure compliance with the law and the best use of Agency resources.
The FSIS Administrator has made a determination that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). There are 263 small and 566 very small meat and poultry slaughter establishments. Based on the data and information contained in the cost to industry section of this rule, the fee is, at most, $4,389 per year for one on-line inspector for an extra 15 minutes (FY 2011 rate). The time required for donning and doffing for small and very small establishments is likely much less than 15 minutes. Furthermore, almost all the very-small establishments will not be affected by this rule because they are on a patrol assignment. Therefore, the impact will not be significant.
This final rule has been reviewed under the Paperwork Reduction Act and imposes no new paperwork or recordkeeping requirements.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this final rule, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
Facilities for inspection.
Poultry products inspection regulations.
Inspection of eggs and egg products (egg products inspection act).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR Chapter III as follows:
7 U.S.C. 394; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.55.
(c) * * * The basic workweek shall consist of 5 consecutive 8-hour days within the administrative workweek Sunday through Saturday, and shall include the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to put on required gear and to walk to a work station, and the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to return from a work station and remove required gear, excluding the lunch period; except that, when possible, the Department shall schedule the basic workweek so as to consist of 5 consecutive 8-hour days Monday through Friday, and shall include the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to put on required gear and to walk to a work station, and the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to return from a work station and remove required gear, excluding the lunch period. * * *
7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
(c) * * * The basic workweek shall consist of 5 consecutive 8-hour days within the administrative workweek Sunday through Saturday, and shall include the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to put on required gear and to walk to a work station, and the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to return from a work station and remove required gear, excluding the lunch period; except that, when possible, the Department shall schedule the basic workweek so as to consist of 5 consecutive 8-hour days Monday through Friday, and shall include the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to put on required gear and to walk to a work station, and the time for FSIS inspection program personnel return from a work station and remove required gear, excluding the lunch period. * * *
21 U.S.C. 1031-1056.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice; correction.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) published a
LaTanya Wright, Senior Advisor, Office of Business Development, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, at (202) 205-5852, Fax (202) 205-6139, or
In the
2. The Anchorage Tribal Consultation address is the Anchorage Marriott Downtown, 820 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for Pratt and Whitney Canada (PWC) model PW210S engines. The engine model will have a novel or unusual design feature which is engine operation in auxiliary power unit (APU) mode. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the added safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is July 11, 2011.
For technical questions concerning this rule contact Marc Bouthillier, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7120; facsimile (781) 238-7199; e-mail
On December 5, 2005, PWC applied for type certification for a new model PW210S turboshaft engine. This engine consists of a two stage compressor driven by a single stage uncooled turbine, and a two stage free power turbine driving a two stage reduction gearbox. The control system includes a dual channel full authority digital electronic control.
The engine will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, which is engine operation in auxiliary power unit (APU) mode.
The applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards to address this design feature.
These special conditions contain the additional airworthiness standards necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the level that would result from compliance with the applicable standards of airworthiness in effect on the date of application.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(a) and 21.101(a), PWC must show that the model PW210S turboshaft engine meets the provisions of the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application, unless otherwise specified by the FAA. The application date is December 5, 2005, which corresponds to 14 CFR part 33 Amendment 20. However, PWC has elected to demonstrate compliance to later amendments of part 33 for this model. Therefore, the certification basis for the PW210S model turboshaft engine will be part 33, effective February 1, 1965, amended by Amendments 33-1 through 33-24.
The FAA has determined that the applicable airworthiness regulations in part 33, Amendments 1-24 inclusive, do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the model PW210 turboshaft engine, because of a novel or unusual rating. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 11.19 and 14 CFR 21.16.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined by 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38, which become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(b)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include another related model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
The PWC PW210S turbo shaft engine will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature which is engine operation in auxiliary power unit (APU) mode. This design feature is considered to be novel and unusual relative to the part 33 airworthiness standards.
Notice of proposed special conditions, Notice No. 33-10-01-SC for the PW210S engine model was published on February 14, 2011 (76 FR 8321). One comment letter was received.
The commenter stated that the part 1 definition included in the special condition may not be necessary, or may require clarification. The FAA does not agree. The definition is necessary to explain the engine function to which these special conditions apply, and the term is used within the rule itself. However, to improve clarity, each of the special condition subsections now includes a reference to APU mode operation.
The commenter stated that the 400 cycle dynamic braking test is inappropriate for this engine certification program, that engine dynamics will be difficult to simulate in a test stand, and that an engine test of this type would be better addressed as part of part 29 rotorcraft certification testing. The FAA does not agree. This test is the same as conducted for turbopropeller engines under § 33.96 and is applicable to turboshaft engines as well. We do not believe it is impractical to reasonably simulate the braking action input into the engine
The commenter stated that the locked rotor portion of the special condition tests needs to be conducted on a single engine, but the dynamic requirements can be addressed separately. The FAA concurs in part. We have concluded that an engine test is required to demonstrate the complete engine response to dynamic braking, however we do agree that the two elements of required testing (locked rotor and dynamic) can be conducted on separate test engines. The FAA has therefore revised paragraph (d) to eliminate the reference to paragraph (b) (400 cycle dynamic braking test), and therefore allows separate engine tests at the applicant's discretion. The FAA has also deleted proposed paragraph (0, which is a safety analysis requirement specific to dynamic responses. In this regard, existing § 33.75 Safety Analysis is considered adequate when an engine test for dynamic braking is conducted per this special condition.
These special conditions are applicable to the PWC PW210S turbo shaft engine. If PWC applies later for a change to the type certificate to include another closely related model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions may also apply to that model as well, and would be made part of the certification basis for that model.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and have determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this special condition with the changes described above. This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of engine. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this feature on the engine product.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the PWC PW210S turbo shaft engine.
1. PART 1 DEFINITION. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator and documented in the appropriate manuals and certification documents, the following definition applies to this special condition: “Auxiliary Power Unit Mode”—Engine operation with the main output shaft and power turbine locked and stationary, while the gas generator portion of the engine continues to operate, for the purpose of supplying the rotorcraft with electric/hydraulic/pneumatic power (as applicable) while on the ground.
2. PART 33 ENGINE TEST REQUIREMENTS:
(a) Ground locking: A total of 45 hours with the engine output shaft locked to simulate rotor brake engagement, in a manner which clearly demonstrates the complete engine's ability to function without adverse affect while operating in the APU mode under the maximum conditions of engine rotor speed, torque, temperature, air bleed and power extraction as specified by the applicant.
(b) Dynamic braking: A total of 400 application-release cycles of simulated brake engagements must be made in a manner which clearly demonstrates the complete engine's ability to function without adverse affect while operating in the APU mode under the maximum conditions of engine acceleration and deceleration rate, rotor speed, torque and temperature as specified by the applicant. The engine output shaft must be stopped prior to brake-release.
(c) One hundred engine starts and stops with the output shaft locked in a manner simulating rotor brake engagement during APU mode operation.
(d) The tests required by paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section must be performed on the same engine.
(e) The tests required by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above must be followed by engine disassembly to the extent necessary to show that each engine part conforms to the type design and is eligible for incorporation into an engine for continued operation in accordance with information submitted in compliance with § 33.4 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
An inspection by the vendor revealed that a number of Rubber Bull Gears (RBG) in the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) of the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 aeroplanes were installed with a wheel material hardness out of specification. This non-conformity has a direct impact on the HSTA life limit. The teeth of these non-conformant RBGs could break and in extreme cases, could lead to uncontrolled HSTA movement without the ability to re-trim the aeroplane. If not corrected, this condition could result in a difficulty to control the pitch and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective July 15, 2011.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 15, 2011.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7303; fax (516) 794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
An inspection by the vendor revealed that a number of Rubber Bull Gears (RBG) in the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) of the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 aeroplanes were installed with a wheel material hardness out of specification. This non-conformity has a direct impact on the HSTA life limit. The teeth of these non-conformant RBGs could break and in extreme cases, could lead to uncontrolled HSTA movement without the ability to re-trim the aeroplane. If not corrected, this condition could result in a difficulty to control the pitch and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian airworthiness] directive mandates replacement of the RBGs which have material hardness out of specification [with a modified HSTA].
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 387 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $296,055, or $765 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 15, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator having part numbers (P/Ns) 8489-5, 8489-6, 8489-7, and 8489-7R.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
An inspection by the vendor revealed that a number of Rubber Bull Gears (RBG) in the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) of the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 aeroplanes were installed with a wheel material hardness out of specification. This non-conformity has a direct impact on the HSTA life limit. The teeth of these non-conformant RBGs could break and in extreme cases, could lead to uncontrolled HSTA movement without the ability to re-trim the aeroplane. If not corrected, this condition could result in a difficulty to control the pitch and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) For airplanes having any HSTA with S/N 107, 111, 124, 126, 135, 139, 142, 145, 146, 266, 268, 271, 274, 276, 277, 280, 282 through 285 inclusive, 290, 292, 294, 297, 299, 307, 309, 320, 337, 400, 402, 403, 410, 412, 418, 421 through 428 inclusive, 430, 435 through 439 inclusive, 441, 443 through 446 inclusive, 448 through 450 inclusive, 452 through 454 inclusive, 456, 459, 461, 463 through 470 inclusive, 472, 474 through 476 inclusive, 478, 545 through 549 inclusive, 570, 571, 573, 574, 600, 603, 608, 612 through 616 inclusive, 623, 627, and 629 through 659 inclusive: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, replace the HSTA with a modified HSTA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-058, dated August 31, 2010.
(1) For HSTAs that have accumulated 8,700 total flight cycles or less as of the effective date of this AD: Within 3,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, or before the HSTA has accumulated 10,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
(2) For HSTAs that have accumulated more than 8,700 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(h) For airplanes having any HSTA with S/N 185, 479, 481, 482, 485, 487, 489, 491 through 496 inclusive, 498, 499, 501, 503, 504, 506, 507, 509, 512 through 514 inclusive, 517, 519 through 522 inclusive, 524, 526 through 528 inclusive, 530, 534 through 536 inclusive, 539, 542, and 543: Within 1,800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, replace the affected HSTA with a modified HSTA in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-058, dated August 31, 2010.
(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a HSTA, having P/N 8489-5, 8489-6, 8489-7, or 8489-7R, with any serial numbers identified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, on any airplane, unless that HSTA has been modified in accordance with SAGEM Service Bulletin 8489-27-007, Revision 1, dated August 10, 2010, and that HSTA has a suffix “B” beside the serial number.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(k) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-34, dated October 5, 2010; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-058, dated August 31, 2010; and SAGEM Service Bulletin 8489-27-007, Revision 1, dated August 10, 2010; for related information.
(l) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-058, dated August 31, 2010; and SAGEM Service Bulletin 8489-27-007, Revision 1, dated August 10, 2010; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; e-mail
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During a production process review, a deviation in hardening of certain Part Number (P/N) 944072 washers has been detected, which exceeds the hardness of the design specification.
The affected washers are part of the magneto ring flywheel hub installation and have been installed on a limited number of engines. No defective washers have been shipped as spare parts.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracks in the washer, loosening of the magneto flywheel hub and consequent ignition failure, possibly resulting in damage to the engine, in-flight engine shutdown and forced landing, damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown, and damage to the airplane.
This AD becomes effective June 27, 2011.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 11, 2011.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG Rotax Mandatory Service Bulletins No. SB-912-058 and No. SB-914-041 (combined in one document), dated April 15, 2011, listed in the AD as of June 27, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0067-E, dated April 15, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During a production process review, a deviation in hardening of certain Part Number (P/N) 944072 washers has been detected, which exceeds the hardness of the design specification.
The affected washers are part of the magneto ring flywheel hub installation and have been installed on a limited number of engines. No defective washers have been shipped as spare parts.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracks in the washer, loosening of the magneto flywheel hub and consequent ignition failure, possibly resulting in damage to the engine, in-flight engine shutdown and forced landing, damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG has issued Rotax Mandatory Service Bulletins No. SB-912-058 and No. SB-914-041 (combined in one document), dated April 15, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Austria and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Austria, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires replacing the washer securing the magneto ring flywheel hub with a new washer of the same part number, on certain serial number BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG Rotax 912 and 914 reciprocating engines.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the short compliance time in this AD of within 10 flight hours or at next maintenance after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer 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
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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 June 27, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to the following BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG Rotax reciprocating engines:
(1) Model 912 F3—serial number (S/N) 4,412.986 and S/N 4,412.987.
(2) Models 912 S2, 912 S3, and 912 S4—S/N 4,924.087 through S/N 4,924.139 inclusive, and S/N 4,924.141 through 4,924.166 inclusive.
(3) Models 914 F2, 914 F3, and 914 F4—S/N 4,420.970 through 4,420.990 inclusive, S/N 4,420.997, and S/N 4,421.001 through 4,421.003 inclusive.
(d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During a production process review, a deviation in hardening of certain Part Number (P/N) 944072 washers has been detected, which exceeds the hardness of the design specification.
The affected washers are part of the magneto ring flywheel hub installation and have been installed on a limited number of engines. No defective washers have been shipped as spare parts.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracks in the washer, loosening of the magneto flywheel hub and consequent ignition failure, possibly resulting in damage to the engine, in-flight engine shutdown and forced landing, damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown, and damage to the airplane.
(e) Unless already done, do the following actions within 10 flight hours or at next maintenance after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first:
(1) Replace the magneto ring flywheel hub washer, P/N 944072.
(2) Use paragraph 3.1 of BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG Rotax Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-912-058, dated April 15, 2011 or SB-914-041 dated April 15, 2011, to do the replacement.
(f) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any washer P/N 944072 removed as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD into any magneto or onto any engine.
(g) This AD differs from the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) as follows:
(1) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2011-0067-E requires compliance within 10 flight hours or 4 calendar months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. This AD requires compliance within 10 flight hours or at next maintenance after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) EASA AD 2011-0067-E requires operators to return the washer removed from service to BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG. This AD does not.
(h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(i) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2011-0067-E, dated April 15, 2011, for related information.
(j) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
(k) You must use BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG Rotax Mandatory Service Bulletins No. SB-912-058 and No. SB-914-041 (combined in one document), dated April 15, 2011, to do the actions required by this AD.
(1) For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria, or go to:
(2) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; rescission.
This amendment rescinds airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-18-19 for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by EASA, to rescind EASA AD 2010-0083. The MCAI specifies the following:
It has been assessed that multiple NRV [non-return valve] failures in combination with certain trapped fuel cases could potentially increase the quantity of unusable fuel on the aeroplane, possibly leading to fuel starvation which could result in engines in-flight shut down and would constitute an unsafe condition. To prevent and detect this condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2010-0083.
Based on in service experience, mainly on the results of the operational test required by
This analysis of the Collector Cell motive flow line NRV, taking into account all failure scenarios, concludes that the previous non compliance can be alleviated. Consequently, no unsafe condition exists any more on the affected NRV.
For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2010-0083 is cancelled.
This AD rescinds the parallel FAA AD 2009-18-19.
This AD becomes effective June 10, 2011.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by rescinding an existing AD. That NPRM was published in the
Since we issued AD 2009-18-19, EASA issued Airworthiness Directive 2010-0083-CN, dated September 20, 2010, to cancel EASA AD 2010-0083, dated May 3, 2010, for the specified products. EASA AD 2010-0083-CN states:
It has been assessed that multiple NRV [non-return valve] failures in combination with certain trapped fuel cases could potentially increase the quantity of unusable fuel on the aeroplane, possibly leading to fuel starvation which could result in engines in-flight shut down and would constitute an unsafe condition. To prevent and detect this condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2010-0083.
Based on in service experience, mainly on the results of the operational test required by EASA AD 2010-0083, Airbus has performed a safety analysis on the NRV to check if the safety objectives are met.
This analysis of the Collector Cell motive flow line NRV, taking into account all failure scenarios, concludes that the previous non compliance can be alleviated. Consequently, no unsafe condition exists any more on the affected NRV.
For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2010-0083 is cancelled.
This AD rescinds the parallel FAA AD 2009-18-19. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require the rescission of the AD as proposed.
We have reviewed the MCAI and, in general, agree with the substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI.
We determined that this AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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),
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This rescission becomes effective June 10, 2011.
(b) This AD rescinds AD 2009-18-19, Amendment 39-16016.
(c) Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the AD.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 series airplanes, all serial numbers.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 series airplanes, all serial numbers.
(d) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2010-0083-CN, dated September 20, 2010, for related information.
(e) None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD requires, depending on airplane configuration, doing certain wiring changes, replacing the fuel pump power control relays for the main, center, and auxiliary tanks, as applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature, performing certain bonding resistance measurements, and modifying relay module assemblies. This AD also requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate certain Airworthiness Limitations. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
This AD is effective July 15, 2011.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 15, 2011.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, PO Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6482; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment. Boeing concurs with the content of this AD.
Alaska Airlines requested that corrections be made to certain accomplishment instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010. Alaska Airlines requested that Boeing Information Notice 737-28A1212 IN 01, dated October 7, 2010, which specifies those corrections, be incorporated into the AD.
We agree that typographical errors in that service bulletin need to be corrected. Where paragraph 3.B.1.s. of Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, states that the affected airplanes are “Group 11, Configuration 1,” that paragraph also applies to “Group 13, Configuration 1.” The action specified in paragraph 3.B.1.s. of that service bulletin (changing a wire bundle) is a logical outgrowth of the actions specified in that service bulletin. Paragraph (j) of this AD addresses this change. Also, the figure in Appendix A, paragraph 1., of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, is not identified, but should be identified as “Figure 1.” Paragraph (k) of this AD addresses this change. That information notice includes additional changes to that service bulletin; however, they are not part of the accomplishment instructions, and therefore are not addressed in our response.
Boeing has issued Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision August 2010, to update certain AWLs other than those specified in this AD. The document reference has been updated in paragraph (l) of this AD.
We have also clarified the intent of paragraph (n) of this AD by revising the heading.
We have also added paragraph (o) of this AD to give credit for revising the maintenance program by incorporating AWLs 28-AWL-22 (for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes) and 28-AWL-23 (for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes), in accordance with Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 750 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD is effective July 15, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (p) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
(e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes without the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules installed: Do the wiring changes; replace the fuel pump power control relays for the main, center, and auxiliary tanks, as applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature; and do certain bonding resistance measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met; in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
(2) Airplanes with the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules installed: Modify the M181, M182, and M183 relay module assemblies, and do certain bonding resistance measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for doing the modification and certain bonding resistance measurements on the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules.
(h) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD, and on which the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules are not installed: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the wiring changes and certain bonding measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD, and on which the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules are installed: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do certain bonding measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for doing the modification and certain bonding resistance measurements on the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules.
(j) Where paragraph 3.B.1.s. of Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, states the applicability as “Group 11, Configuration 1,” that paragraph also applies to “Group 13, Configuration 1.”
(k) The figure in Appendix A, paragraph 1., of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, should be identified as Figure 1 (immediately following the text).
(l) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, as applicable, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, revise the maintenance program by incorporating the applicable airworthiness limitation (AWL) specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD.
(1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: AWL 28-AWL-23 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision August 2010. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28-AWL-23 is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: AWL 28-AWL-22 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 AWL and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision August 2010. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28-AWL-22 is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(m) After accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, as applicable, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used, unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
(n) Revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWLs 28-AWL-22 (for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes) and 28-AWL-23 (for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes) in accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of AD 2008-10-09 R1, amendment 39-16148, terminates the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD.
(o) Revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWLs 28-AWL-22 (for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes) and 28-AWL-23 (for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes) before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD.
(p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, sent it to ATTN: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6482; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(q) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010; and Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision August 2010; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. This document is identified as Section 9 only on the List of Effective Pages.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD requires replacing the existing unshielded fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire bundles with double shielded FQIS wire bundles, installing a new wire feed-through fitting, and grounding the wire shields, as applicable; and doing repetitive low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate certain airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to increase the level of protection from lightning strikes and prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
This AD is effective July 15, 2011.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 15, 2011.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6478; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.
Boeing requested that we explain that some designees with AMOC authority may be necessary for the structural portions of the AD. Boeing stated that repairs to airplane structure, if needed, would also be an AMOC to the AD and would need to be noted as such and approved by the FAA or a Boeing Authorized Representative designated with AMOC authority for the structural aspects of this installation. Boeing added that any repair would need to address damage tolerance issues associated with 14 CFR 25.571 and 14 CFR part 26, subpart E. of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Boeing stated that these requirements are the basis for the inspections provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-0131, dated August 18, 2010, and changes to the installation with repairs may revise the inspection requirements.
We agree with the request to add explanatory information to paragraph (i) of this AD. Any structural repairs that cannot be done in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-0131, dated August 18, 2010, will require a request for an AMOC. The requested AMOC, if it provides an acceptable level of safety, may be approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. Paragraph (i) of this AD has been changed to explain that some designees with AMOC authority for the structures portions of the AD might be necessary.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 566 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition action specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD is effective July 15, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, all variable numbers, certificated in any category.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
(d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
(e) This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to increase the level of protection from lightning strikes and prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
(f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install double shielded fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire bundles, install a new wire feed-through fitting, and ground the wire shields, as applicable, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-0131, dated August 18, 2010.
(h) At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-0131, dated August 18, 2010.
(1) For Model 727, 727-100, 727-100C, and 727C series airplanes: Before the accumulation of 45,000 total flight cycles, or within 8,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight cycles.
(2) For Model 727-200 and 727-200F series airplanes: Before the accumulation of 45,000 total flight cycles, or within 16,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 16,000 flight cycles.
(i) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet
(j) Before or concurrently with doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating airworthiness limitations (AWL) No. 28-AWL-18 and 28-AWL-19 in Section D of Section 9 (“AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS-FUEL SYSTEMS”) of the Boeing 727-100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Document, D6-8766-AWL, Revision August 2010. The initial compliance time for AWL No. 28-AWL-18 is within 10 years after the accomplishment of paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 10 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(k) After accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(m) For more information about this AD, contact Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6478; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-0131, dated August 18, 2010; and Section 9 of the Boeing 727-100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Section 9, Document D6-8766-AWL, Revision August 2010; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. “Section 9” is referenced only in the List of Effective Pages section of the Boeing 727-100/200 AWLs Document.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Department of State.
Notice of suspension of applicability of certain requirements.
The Department is temporarily suspending the application of certain requirements governing program status and on-campus and off-campus employment for J-1 Libyan students. This action is necessary to mitigate the adverse impact upon these students due to political turmoil in their home country.
This action is effective June 10, 2011, and will remain in effect until December 31, 2011.
Nicole Deaner, Senior Advisor, Private Sector Exchange, 2200 C Street NW., SA-5, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20522; e-mail
Recent political turmoil in Libya has affected Exchange Visitor Program college and university students studying in the United States. Many of the students dependent upon financial support originating in their home country have found themselves without funds. To ameliorate the hardship arising from this lack of financial support and facilitate these students' continued studies, the Department is suspending the application of the full course of study requirement set forth at 22 CFR 62.23(e), the application of the requirements governing student employment set forth at 22 CFR 62.23(g), and the application of the duration of participation requirements set forth at 22 CFR 62.23(h) effective June 10, 2011 until December 31, 2011. The temporary suspension of certain requirements governing program status and on-campus and off-campus employment for J-1 Libyan students does not apply to Federal Work-Study jobs.
College and university students in J-1 status whose means of financial support come from Libya and whose financial support has been disrupted, reduced, or eliminated due to turmoil in their home country may be authorized by the Responsible Officer of their academic institution to pursue full-time or part-time on-campus or off-campus employment. A reduction in the students' academic course load may also be necessary due to this employment and accordingly, such students will be deemed to be in valid J-1 Exchange Visitor Program student status if they are (i) an undergraduate student and enrolled for not less than six semester hours of academic credit or its recognized equivalent; (ii) a graduate student enrolled for not less than three hours of academic credit or its recognized equivalent; (iii) a non-degree student actively participating on not less than a half-time equivalent basis in the prescribed course of study for which the student was initially authorized J-1 student status; or (iv) a non-degree student actively pursuing English language instruction on not less than a half-time equivalent basis.
Responsible officers who authorize on-campus or off-campus employment for these students should update the
The Department's suspension of the application of the requirements set forth in 22 CFR 62.23(e), 22 CFR 62.23(g) and 22 CFR 62.23(h) for these identified students will remain in effect until December 31, 2011.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to the election and calculation of the alternative simplified credit under section 41(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The final regulations affect certain taxpayers claiming the credit under section 41. These final regulations implement changes to the credit for increasing research activities under section 41 made by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
David Selig (202) 622-3040 (not a toll-free number).
On June 17, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final and temporary regulations (TD 9401) in the
The 2008 regulations were issued primarily to provide guidance on the election and calculation of the ASC. Section 1.41-9T(b) of the 2008 regulations provide that an election to make or revoke the provisions of the ASC under section 41(c)(5) must be made on a timely filed (including extensions) original return for the taxable year and may not be made on an amended return. Before the issuance of the 2008 regulations, identical election procedures existed for the alternative incremental research credit (AIRC) under § 1.41-8. The 2008 regulations extended these election procedures to the ASC under § 1.41-9T. The 2008 regulations also provided that extensions of time to make or revoke the election for both the AIRC and the ASC will not be granted under § 301.9100-3. In the case of the AIRC, the 2008 regulations are of limited duration as section 41(h)(2) provides that no election under section 41(c)(4) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
Commenters stated that these provisions of the 2008 regulations are restrictive and asked that they be excluded from the final regulations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that both tax administration and fairness are best served by adopting the same election procedures for the ASC that are used for the AIRC under § 1.41-8. A taxpayer may make or revoke an election each taxable year by obtaining the consent of the Commissioner. A taxpayer is deemed to have requested, and to have been granted, the consent of the Commissioner to make or revoke an election if the taxpayer completes the portion of Form 6765, “Credit for Increasing Research Activities,” (or successor form) relating to the credit determined under section 41(a)(1), the AIRC, or the ASC, as appropriate, and attaches the completed form to the taxpayer's timely filed (including extensions) original return for the year to which it applies. As is the case with a revocation of an AIRC election under § 1.41-8, an ASC election under section 41(c)(5) may not be made or revoked on an amended return. Consistent with this position, the final regulations also provide that an extension of time to make or revoke an election under sections 41(c)(4) and 41(c)(5) will not be granted under § 301.9100-3.
One commenter suggested changing the ASC short taxable year rules in the 2008 regulations to prorate short years by the number of days in the year instead of the number of months in the year. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that calculating the ASC for short taxable years on a daily rather than a monthly basis provides a more accurate calculation and removes uncertainty as to whether and how to include a partial month in making the monthly calculation. Accordingly, the final regulations generally require that short taxable years be prorated by the number of days in the year instead of the number of months in the year for taxable years ending after June 9, 2011. Recognizing that some taxpayers may have already filed returns using a monthly calculation for a short taxable year, the final regulations also provide that returns filed for taxable years ending within a specified time period may, at the taxpayer's option, be amended to reflect the daily calculation.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although a substantial number of small entities may make an election under these regulations, any economic impact is minimal. This certification is based upon the fact that the information required by these regulations is already required to be maintained under the statute and current regulations. These regulations add little or no new burden to the existing requirements. Additionally, an election under these regulations generally will simplify the calculation of the credit and may result
The principal author of these regulations is David Selig, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.41-8 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 41(c)(4)(B). Section 1.41-9 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 41(c)(5)(C). * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(j) Effective/applicability dates.
(3) Taxable years ending after June 9, 2011.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) In general.
(ii) Designated member.
(a) Determination of credit.
(b) Election.
(1) In general.
(2) Time and manner of election.
(3) Revocation.
(4) Special rules for controlled groups.
(i) In general.
(ii) Designated member.
(c) Special rules.
(1) Qualified research expenditures (QREs) required in all years.
(2) Section 41(c)(6) applicability.
(3) Short taxable years.
(i) General rule.
(ii) Limited exception.
(4) Controlled groups.
(d) Effective/applicability dates.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
(e)
The following example illustrates a group computation in a year for which the ASC method under section 41(c)(5) is in effect. No members of the controlled group are members of a consolidated group and no member of the group made any basic research payments or paid or incurred any amounts to an energy research consortium.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(j)
(3)
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4) * * *
(ii)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(d)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that remove the duplicate filing requirement for Form 5472, “Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business.” The temporary regulations affect certain 25-percent foreign-owned domestic corporations and certain foreign corporations that are engaged in a trade or business in the United States that are required to file Form 5472. The text of the temporary
Gregory A. Spring, (202) 435-5265 (not a toll-free number).
Section 6038A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) generally requires information reporting by a 25-percent foreign-owned domestic corporation with respect to certain transactions between such corporation and certain related parties. Similarly, section 6038C generally requires a foreign corporation engaged in a trade or business within the United States at any time during the taxable year to report the information described in section 6038A with respect to certain transactions between such corporation and certain related parties.
On June 19, 1991, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
On February 9, 2004, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
On September 15, 2004, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
As a result of advances in electronic processing and data collection in the IRS, the duplicate filing requirement contained in § 1.6038A-2(d) is no longer necessary. Upon the effective date of these temporary regulations, the duplicate filing of Form 5472 will no longer be required regardless of whether the reporting corporation files a paper or an electronic income tax return. The temporary regulations implement this change by removing from § 1.6038A-2(d), the duplicate filing requirement and the electronic filing provision.
As a conforming amendment, the temporary regulations also remove the duplicate filing requirement from the untimely filed return provision of § 1.6038A-2(e). In addition, the temporary regulations remove the reference in § 1.6038A-2(e) to “at the service center where the return is due” in order to avoid any implication that the untimely filed return provision can only be satisfied by filing a paper Form 5472. However, while the Treasury Department and the IRS intend that a timely filed electronic Form 5472 would be treated as satisfying the untimely filed return provision, there are currently no procedures for electronically filing Form 5472 independent of an electronically filed income tax return. Thus, a reporting corporation that does not timely file an income tax return must still timely file a paper Form 5472 in order to satisfy the untimely filed return provision. If the IRS institutes procedures for the separate electronic filing of Form 5472, reporting corporations will no longer be required to file a paper Form 5472 when filing the Form 5472 separate from an income tax return.
Lastly, the temporary regulations amend the effective date provisions of § 1.6038A-1(n) to provide that the amendments to § 1.6038A-2(d) and (e) apply for taxable years ending on or after June 10, 2011.
The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
It has been determined that this temporary regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C chapter 6) refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble of the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in
The principal author of these regulations is Gregory A. Spring, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in its development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(n) * * *
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038A-1T(n)(2).
(a) through (n)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.6038A-1(a) through (n)(1).
(2)
(n)(3) through (n)(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.6038A-1(n)(3) through (6).
(d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038A-2T(d).
(e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038A-2T(e).
(a) through (c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038A-2(a) through (c).
(d)
(e)
(f) through (h) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038A-2(f) through (h).
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; correcting amendments.
The Department of Veterans Affairs published a document on February 6, 1997, amending 38 CFR part 3 by removing § 3.51. At that time, we failed to remove all the cross-references to 38 CFR 3.51 in other parts of 38 CFR. This document corrects that error by removing those cross-references.
Molly McCann, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-4902. (This is not a toll-free number).
On February 6, 1997 (62 FR 5528), VA amended 38 CFR part 3 to eliminate gender-specific language. As part of that amendment, VA removed 38 CFR 3.51. At that time, we failed to remove all the cross-references to 38 CFR 3.51 in other parts of 38 CFR. As § 3.51 has been removed, any cross-references to it are obsolete and should have been eliminated. This document corrects those sections which refer to 38 CFR 3.51 by removing the cross-reference. These nonsubstantive technical corrections are made for clarity and accuracy. With this action, VA is amending 38 CFR part 18, Subpart E, Appendix B and 38 CFR 21.260(d), which contain cross-references to 38 CFR 3.51.
This action is a technical correction to cross-references in two regulations. Accordingly, it is exempt from the prior notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Authority delegations, Blind, Buildings, Civil rights, Employment, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs, Handicapped, Investigations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Education, Employment, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Loan programs—education, Loan programs—veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses,
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR parts 18 and 21 are correctly amended as follows:
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6101,
38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 18, 31, and as noted in specific sections.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) which was submitted on November 16, 2006 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This change to Allegheny County's Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations amends the existing requirements for sources locating in or impacting a nonattainment area in Allegheny County by incorporating Federal modeling requirements. EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on August 9, 2011 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by July 11, 2011. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0881 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Paul T. Wentworth, P.E. (215) 814-2183, or by e-mail at:
Throughout this rulemaking action, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we are referring to EPA. On November 16, 2006, PADEP submitted a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. This change to Allegheny County's Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations amends the existing requirements for sources locating in or impacting a nonattainment area by incorporating Federal modeling requirements.
EPA is approving a formal revision to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by the State on November 16, 2006 by the PADEP. This SIP revision adds a new paragraph (2102.06.g.) to Allegheny
EPA is approving a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP as submitted on November 16, 2006. This revision adds the modeling requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I as a new paragraph 2102.06.g., entitled “Requirements of Modeling”, to Allegheny County's Article XXI, section 2102.06, “Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area.” EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. This revision to Allegheny County's regulation 2102.06, addresses the requirements in Federal regulation 40 CFR part 51 subpart I. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
This action which modifies the Pennsylvania SIP by adding the Federal modeling requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart I for Allegheny County may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
Department of Justice.
Request for comments.
As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Justice (the Department) encourages comments on its preliminary plan for the retrospective review of its existing regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The purpose of the Department's review is to make its regulatory program more effective and less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.
Comments may be mailed to OLP Regulatory Docket Clerk, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 4250, Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference FDMS Docket No. DOJ-LA-2011-0016 on your correspondence. You may also submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of this notice and of the plan at
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 4252, Washington, DC 20530; Telephone (202) 514-8059.
The Department understands that the public comment period set forth in this Request for comments is shorter than the 60-day comment period normally given for proposed rules. However, in this Request for comments (which is not, of course, a proposed rule), the Department is not asking for detailed, lengthy comments on its regulations, but only on matters pertaining to the Department's preliminary retrospective review plan.
On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve policy goals, and that agencies give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. As part of the Department's implementation of the Executive Order, on March 1, 2011, it published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comment on how best to review its existing regulations and to identify whether any of its existing regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. (76 FR 11163) Before the comment period closed on March 30, 2011, the Department received ten comments. The comments are summarized in the Department's Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations (May 18, 2011), which is posted on
Consistent with the Department's commitment to public participation in the rulemaking process, the Department is now by this Request for comments soliciting views from the public on its Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Review of its regulations. The Department is also soliciting additional candidate rules for review, and specifically inviting comments that identify why particular rules should be prioritized for review under the standards we lay out in the plan.
To comment on the Justice Department's preliminary plan, visit
The Department notes that this Request for comments is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. The Department will give careful consideration to the responses, and may use them as appropriate during the retrospective review, but we do not anticipate providing a point-by-point response to each comment submitted. While responses to this Request for comments do not bind the Department to any further actions related to the response, all submissions will be made publically available on
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010 amended section 273(d) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (the Act), requiring the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish an electronic reporting system for certain manufacturers of dairy products to report sales information for a mandatory dairy product reporting program. The amendment further stated that the Secretary shall publish the information obtained for the preceding week not later than 3 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday of each week.
This proposed rule offers procedures for the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to implement the amendment to section 273(d) the Act and announces the intention of AMS to request approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of associated information collection requirements. This proposed rule requests comments concerning changes proposed in this rule.
Comments must be received by August 9, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal at
John R. Mengel, Chief Economist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Office of the Chief Economist, STOP 0229-Room 2753, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0229,
This proposed rule is issued pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 [7 U.S.C. 1621
AMS is responsible for verifying the sales information submitted by reporting entities to NASS. AMS currently visits larger entities that account for 80 percent of the yearly reported product volume of each specified dairy product at least once annually. AMS visits one-half of entities that account for the remaining 20 percent each year, visiting each such entity at least once every other year. During each visit, AMS reviews applicable sales transactions records for at least the 4 most recent weeks. In some cases, AMS may review sales records for periods of up to 2 years. AMS verifies that sales transactions match the information reported to NASS and that there are no applicable sales transactions not reported to NASS. Noncompliance, appeals, and enforcement procedures are administered by AMS.
The Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-239, Sept. 27, 2010) amended section 273(d) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1637b) to require that the Secretary establish an electronic reporting system for manufacturers of dairy products to report certain market information for the mandatory dairy product reporting program. The amendment further stated that the Secretary shall publish the information obtained under this section for the preceding week not later than 3 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday of each week. This proposed rule includes regulatory changes for implementing these provisions and transferring applicable data collection responsibilities to AMS. This proposed rule announces the intention of AMS to request approval of associated information collection requirements by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are requested concerning changes proposed in this rule.
This proposed rule has been determined to not be significant for purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget with respect to this Executive Order.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The amendments contained in this proposed rule are not intended to have a retroactive effect.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities and has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.
Small businesses in the dairy product manufacturing
The dairy manufacturing establishments included in U.S. Census Bureau statistics include manufacturers of all types of dairy products. The number of plants that produce butter, cheese, NFDM, and dry whey with the precise specifications included in the mandatory reporting requirements is much lower than this. Furthermore, those manufacturers that process and market less than 1 million pounds of the applicable dairy products annually are exempt from reporting sales data. Currently, NASS conducts an annual validation survey that serves to determine which plants are required to report. In 2010, this survey included 182 plants. Based upon the survey, there were 88 dairy product plants that were subject to mandatory reporting of sales data. There were 52 reporting entities that reported data for one or more plants. The annual cost for plants to complete this survey is estimated at approximately $9 per plant. AMS intends to continue to conduct the survey. Based upon company profile information available on the Internet, AMS estimates that almost half of the reporting entities are considered small businesses under the criteria established by the SBA.
AMS estimates that the annual cost per plant for reporting sales information for products included in the surveys is approximately $511. The majority of reporting entities report data to NASS through a secure web-based application. Less than three plants regularly fax their information, and it is believed that these plants do have Internet access. Therefore, there would be no significant start-up costs anticipated for the reporting entities as a result of implementing this rule as proposed.
Under the current Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting Program, dairy manufacturers are required to maintain records for verification purposes for a 2-year period. This proposed rule makes no changes to this requirement. These records are maintained as part of the normal course of business. Thus, there is no additional burden or cost associated with the maintenance of these records. Therefore, in total, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Act requires persons engaged in manufacturing dairy products to provide to USDA certain information including the price, quantity, and moisture content, where applicable, of dairy products sold by the manufacturer. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), AMS announces its intention to request an approval of information collection and recordkeeping pursuant to these requirements.
The Act requires each manufacturer to report to the Secretary information concerning the price, quantity, and moisture content (where applicable) of dairy products sold by the manufacturer. Dairy products reported include cheddar cheese, butter, dry whey, and NFDM. Dairy manufacturers report information for these products if the products meet certain product specifications.
The collection and reporting of sales information, as required by the Act, have been the responsibility of NASS. NASS currently collects the information as part of the information collection package OMB 0535-0020. NASS allows manufacturers to submit information through a secure web-based application, by e-mail, or by fax. Manufacturers are required to submit information to NASS by 12 noon on Wednesday on all applicable products during the 7 days ending 12 midnight of the previous Saturday, local time of the plant or storage facility where the sales are made. NASS compiles and aggregates the information reported by the reporting entities and publishes the information each Friday morning. If a Federal holiday falls on a Tuesday or Wednesday, NASS contacts manufacturers via e-mail or phone concerning the applicable report deadline.
Manufacturers that process and market less than 1 million pounds of applicable dairy products annually are exempt from reporting requirements. Each year, dairy manufacturers complete an Annual Validation Worksheet for NASS to determine which dairy manufacturers are exempt and to ascertain if valid information is being supplied. NASS currently collects the information as part of the information collection package OMB 0535-0020.
The Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010 amended subsection 273(d) of the Act, requiring the Secretary to establish an electronic reporting system to collect the required information and to publish, not later than 3 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday of each week, a report containing the preceding week's information. The information collection and reporting requirements have been the responsibility of NASS. Under this proposed rule AMS would assume this responsibility. NASS would no longer collect price, quantity, or moisture content (where applicable) information for cheddar cheese, butter, NFDM, or dry whey, and NASS would no longer collect the associated annual validation information. The forms associated with this data collection would be removed from OMB 0535-0020 and would be included in an AMS collection package, OMB 0581-NEW.
The proposed provisions have been reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements. The proposed electronic submission forms would require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. It is expected that no outside technical expertise will be needed. The forms are simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on respondents.
To assist the industry in achieving compliance, educational and outreach sessions will be held prior to implementation. AMS will assist reporting entities in understanding requirements for submitting data through electronic means specified by AMS. In addition, AMS plans to beta test the electronic-submission technology before implementation, and all entities required to report will be encouraged to participate in the beta-testing program. Any feedback received during this outreach and testing period will be used to correct technical problems.
Collecting the information will coincide with normal industry business practices. The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the program while minimizing the amount of work necessary to submit the required reports. The information to be collected by AMS, as proposed in this rule, is identical to the information currently collected by NASS. NASS currently allows manufacturers to submit information through a secure web-based
The frequency of data collection will not change. Reporting entities are now required to report information to NASS by 12 noon on Wednesday. This proposed rule would require reporting entities to report the same information to AMS by 12 noon local time of the reporting entities on Tuesday. This change is necessary to allow AMS personnel time to review and compile data and to publish the information by 3 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday as required by the Act. If a Federal holiday falls on Monday through Wednesday of a particular week, the due date for report submission may be adjusted. Prior to the beginning of each calendar year, this rule proposes that AMS shall inform reporting entities of the times and dates that reports are due.
Information collection requirements that are included in this proposal include:
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from John Mengel, Chief Economist,
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of Agriculture or the U.S. Attorney General for enforcement purposes, no officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall provide the public any information, statistics, or documents obtained from or submitted by any person under the Act that does not ensure preservation of confidentiality regarding the identity of persons, including parties to contracts and proprietary business information. All report forms include a statement that individual reports are kept confidential.
With respect to the application of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) to the maintenance of records required by the Act, the Dairy Products Sales survey population consists of dairy product manufacturers. Data collected by this survey relates to manufacturers' operations and transactions and not to those of individuals. Records maintained at business sites for verification of information that would be reported to AMS include contracts, agreements, receipts and other materials related to sales of specific dairy products. No records about individuals would be maintained by AMS for this survey, and AMS believes that none would be part of these maintained business papers.
This rule proposes that AMS be responsible for collection of sales data and reporting; that reporting entities be required to submit, by an electronic means specified by AMS, a report to AMS by Tuesday, 12 noon local time of reporting entities (unless adjusted because of a Federal holiday and communicated to dairy product manufacturers by AMS before the beginning of the calendar year), of all
AMS will review all timely comments received and will consider these comments in developing a final rule.
Dairy products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Cheese, Butter, Whey, Nonfat dry milk.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 1170 be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1170 is amended to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1637-1637b, as amended by Public Law 106-532, 114 Stat. 2541; Public Law 107-171, 116 Stat. 207; and Public Law. 111-239, 124 Stat. 2501.
2. Revise § 1170.2 to read as follows:
3. Revise § 1170.7 to read as follows:
(a) All dairy product manufacturers, with the exception of those who are exempt as described in § 1170.9, shall submit a report weekly to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) by Tuesday, 12 noon local time of reporting entities, on all products sold as specified in § 1170.8 during the 7 days ending 12 midnight of the previous Saturday, local time of the plant or storage facility where the sales are made. If a Federal holiday falls on Monday through Wednesday of a particular week, the due date for report submission may be adjusted. Prior to the beginning of each calendar year, AMS shall release, to manufacturers that are required to report, the times and dates that reports are due. The report is to be submitted by electronic means specified by AMS and shall indicate the name, address, plant location(s), quantities sold, total sales dollars or dollars per pound for the applicable products, and the moisture content where applicable. Each sale shall be reported for the time period when the transaction is completed, i.e. the product is “shipped out” and title transfer occurs. Each sale shall be reported either f.o.b. plant if the product is “shipped out” from the plant or f.o.b. storage facility location if the product is “shipped out” from a storage facility. In calculating the total dollars received or dollars per pound, the reporting entity shall neither add transportation charges incurred at the time the product is “shipped out” or after the product is “shipped out” nor deduct transportation charges incurred before the product is “shipped out.” In calculating the total dollars received or dollars per pound, the reporting entity shall not deduct brokerage fees or clearing charges paid by the manufacturer.
(b) Manufacturers or other persons storing dairy products are required to report, on a monthly basis, stocks of dairy products (as defined in § 1170.4) on hand, on the appropriate forms supplied by the National Agricultural Statistic Service. The report shall indicate the name, address, and stocks on hand at the end of the month for each storage location.
4. Revise § 1170.8 (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
5. Add § 1170.17 to read as follows:
Not later than 3 p.m. Eastern Time on the Wednesday of each week, AMS shall publish aggregated information obtained by manufacturers or other persons of all products sold as specified in § 1170.8. If a Federal holiday falls on Monday through Wednesday of a particular week, the due date for report publication may be adjusted. The public shall be notified of report times prior to the beginning of the calendar year.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule; public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) plans to conduct a two-day public meeting in Augusta, Georgia, to solicit input on issues associated with the development of a draft regulatory basis document for a potential rulemaking on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities.
The public meeting will be held on June 21 and 22, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. See
The public meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Augusta, 1065 Stevens Creek Road, Augusta, GA 30907;
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
•
•
•
•
•
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
•
•
•
Raj Iyengar, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
The Commission directed the NRC staff, in a staff requirements memorandum, SRM-SECY-07-0081 (ML071800084), to perform a gap analysis to identify what changes in regulatory requirements would be necessary to license a reprocessing facility. The staff was also directed to provide a technical basis document with recommended options on a path forward and an associated rulemaking plan, if appropriate, for licensing facilities associated with reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The staff provided the Commission with information on the regulatory structure for spent fuel reprocessing (SECY-08-0134, ML082110363) and an update on the reprocessing regulatory framework (SECY-09-0082, ML091520280 and ML091520365). In May 2010, the staff provided, in a memorandum to the Commission, an annual update on reprocessing activities and stated that it anticipated that it could complete the draft regulatory basis (formerly referred to as “technical basis”) by September 2011.
The NRC has the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to license commercial spent fuel reprocessing facilities. Currently, Title 10 of the
Although commercial reprocessing interest waned, the Department of Energy (DOE) continued to pursue reprocessing technology development through the National Laboratories. The DOE has sought to decrease proliferation risk and spent fuel high-level waste through developing more sophisticated reprocessing technologies.
During the Bush Administration, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) renewed interest in commercial reprocessing. The GNEP sought to expand the use of civilian nuclear power globally and close the nuclear fuel cycle through reprocessing spent fuel and deploying fast reactors to burn long-lived actinides. In response to these initiatives, the Commission directed the staff to complete an analysis of 10 CFR part 50 to identify regulatory gaps for licensing an advanced reprocessing facility.
In mid-2008, two nuclear industry companies informed the NRC of their intent to seek a license for a reprocessing facility in the U.S. An additional company expressed its support for updating the regulatory framework for reprocessing, but stopped short of stating its intent to seek a license for such a facility. At the time, the NRC staff also noted that progress on some GNEP initiatives had waned and it appeared appropriate to shift the focus of the NRC staff's efforts from specific GNEP-facility regulations to a more broadly applicable framework for commercial reprocessing facilities.
In SECY-08-0134, the staff discussed the shift in its approach to developing the regulatory framework for commercial reprocessing facilities. The staff noted that it would defer additional work on regulatory framework development efforts for advanced recycling reactors and focus on the framework revisions necessary to license a commercial reprocessing facility. As a result of this shift, an additional review of the initial gap analysis was warranted.
The NRC staff further refined the regulatory gap analysis by focusing on commercial reprocessing and recycling using existing reactor technology. The staff summarized this analysis in SECY-09-0082. The staff's gap analysis identified 14 “high” priority gaps that must be resolved to establish an effective and efficient regulatory framework. The NRC staff's regulatory gap analysis considered several documents in its analysis, including: NUREG-1909, a white paper authored by the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials, titled “Background, Status and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities,” issued June 2008; correspondence from the Union of Concerned Scientists titled, “Revising the Rules for Materials Protection, Control and Accounting;” and a Nuclear Energy Institute white
Building on the gap analysis, efforts are currently underway to develop a regulatory basis (formerly known as “technical basis”) to pursue rulemaking that would enable the effective licensing and regulation of reprocessing facilities. The status of the regulatory basis development and estimated schedule for completing the reprocessing regulatory framework development are summarized in the May 14, 2010, memorandum to the Commission (ADAMS ML101110444).
Stakeholder perspectives have provided significant input into the development process through the two public workshops which occurred on September 8, 2010, in Rockville, Maryland, and on October 19, 2010, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The NRC staff considered the stakeholders' feedback in the development of the regulatory framework. The proposed workshop in Augusta, Georgia is intended to further enhance the development of the regulatory framework and to continue the pursuit of an open and transparent regulatory process.
The NRC develops a foundation for a rulemaking before beginning the process to develop the rule. An adequate regulatory basis forms the foundation for a rule. The regulatory basis provides the justification for rulemaking as the appropriate path forward, describes the technical, legal, or policy information that supports the direction and content of the rulemaking, and provides a basis for informed decisions to be made as the rulemaking process continues. A regulatory basis may include background information and a listing of documents that supported or addressed the current regulation or policy, or that support staff positions in the regulatory basis.
The NRC staff is using the gaps and their resolution as the framework for the regulatory basis for a potential rulemaking for licensing a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. The NRC staff is in the process of completing an initial draft of the regulatory basis. To facilitate stakeholder involvement and obtain comments on the NRC's approach and rationale for resolving the regulatory gaps, the staff is compiling summaries of the initial draft text for each gap. The gap summaries, as appropriate, will include questions where the NRC staff is seeking input that will assist in completing the draft regulatory basis. During any potential rulemaking, the NRC staff will consider the need for and the development of associated guidance. Thus, the NRC staff is compiling a list of potentially pertinent guidance documents. The summary documents for the gaps and a listing of potentially pertinent guidance documents will be made available at
The agenda for the public meeting will be noticed ten (10) days prior to the meeting on the NRC's public meeting schedule Web site at
The NRC plans to consider these stakeholder views in the development of the draft regulatory basis. During the June 21-22, 2011, public meeting, the NRC staff will invite representatives of interested stakeholders, in a “roundtable” format, to provide input, comments, and perspectives on the issues being considered in the development of the draft regulatory basis for a potential rulemaking on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities. In order to have a manageable discussion, the number of participants around the table will be limited. The NRC will attempt to ensure broad participation by the spectrum of interests affected by the potential rulemaking, including citizen and environmental groups, nuclear industry interests, State, and local governments, and experts from academia and other Federal agencies. Other members of the public are welcome to attend and participate. Those not seated at the tables, including individual members of the public, will have the opportunity to provide feedback on each of the issues slated for discussion by the roundtable participants. Questions about participation in the roundtable discussion may be directed to the points of contact listed in the
During the public meeting, the NRC plans to solicit stakeholder comments and feedback during separate discussion sessions, which will broadly cover four main areas of the regulatory basis for licensing commercial reprocessing facilities: (1) Regulatory framework, (2) waste management and environmental considerations, (3) safety, risk, and licensing considerations, and (4) security considerations and materials control and accounting. Each area includes the gaps related to that topic.
In the summary documents posted at
As part of the potential rulemaking, the NRC staff will consider the need for and development of associated guidance. The listing of potentially pertinent guidance documents will be made available prior to the meeting on June 21-22, 2011, at
Furthermore, in developing options for a potential rulemaking the NRC staff seeks information on what timeline should be considered for rulemaking. Is there a point when it becomes critical for this rulemaking to become effective?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission); Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA); and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On April 29, 2011, the OCC, Board, FDIC, Commission, FHFA and HUD (collectively, the “Agencies”) published in the
Due to the complexity of the rulemaking and to allow parties more time to consider the impact of the Credit Risk NPR on affected markets, the Agencies have determined that an extension of the comment period until August 1, 2011, is appropriate. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposed rules and prepare their comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published April 29, 2011, at 76 FR 24090, is extended. Comments on the Credit Risk NPR must be received on or before August 1, 2011.
You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the Credit Risk NPR. Please submit your comments using only one method.
On April 29, 2011, the Credit Risk NPR was published in the
The Credit Risk NPR would specify credit risk retention requirements for securitizers of ABS. In designing the proposed rules, the Agencies sought to ensure that the amount of credit risk retained would be meaningful—consistent with the purposes of section 15G—while reducing the potential for the proposed rules to negatively affect the availability and cost of credit to
The Agencies have received requests from the public for an extension of the comment period to allow for sufficient time for data gathering and impact analyses related to the provisions of the proposed rule.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary under delegated authority, June 6, 2011.
By order of the Board of Directors. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Jointly prescribed with the Agencies.
By the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to the products listed above. The existing AD currently requires repetitively inspecting the elevator control tabs for discrepancies and, if any discrepancies are found, taking necessary corrective actions to bring all discrepancies within acceptable tolerances. The existing AD also requires reporting certain inspection results to the FAA. Since we issued that AD, we determined that we inadvertently omitted certain airplanes from the Applicability section. This proposed AD would retain the actions currently required in AD 2011-05-02 and remove the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA01059SE condition in the Applicability section. We are proposing this AD to add new repetitive inspections of the elevator control tabs. If these inspections are not done, excessive free-play in the elevator control tabs could develop. This condition could lead to loss of tab control linkage and severe elevator flutter. Such elevator flutter could lead to possible loss of control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For information about the revisions to the FAA-approved maintenance/inspection program identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Ltd., 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, BC Canada V8L 5V5; telephone: (800) 663-8444; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Duckett, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 228-7325; fax: (516) 794-5531; e-mail:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On February 15, 2011, we issued AD 2011-05-02, Amendment 39-16611 (76 FR 10220, February 24, 2011), for certain Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate No. A-815 formerly held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-3 airplanes. That AD requires repetitively inspecting the
Since we issued AD 2011-05-02, we determined that we inadvertently omitted certain airplanes from the Applicability section. The current Applicability section includes Model DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, that do not have the new elevator servo tab and redundant control linkage installed according to Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA01059SE and that are certificated in any category.
The actions currently required in AD 2011-05-02 were intended for all Model DHC-3 airplanes regardless if the installation of the redundant linkage was done according to Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA01059SE.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2011-05-02. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability statement of the existing AD by removing the STC SA01059SE condition.
We are continuing to evaluate the cause of the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD to enable us to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of excessive free-play in the elevator control tabs. Based on this evaluation, we may consider further rulemaking.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary follow-on actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair/replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) AD 2011-05-02, Amendment 39-16611 (76 FR 10220, February 24, 2011), and adding the following new AD:
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 25, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2011-05-02, Amendment 39-16611.
(c) This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate No. A-815 formerly held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.
(d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
(e) This AD results from an evaluation of revisions to the manufacturer's maintenance manual that adds new repetitive inspections to the elevator control tabs. To require compliance with these inspections for U.S. owners and operators we are mandating these inspections through the rulemaking process. We are issuing this AD to add new repetitive inspections of the elevator control tabs. If these inspections are not done, excessive free-play in the elevator control tabs could develop. This condition could lead to loss of tab control linkage and severe elevator flutter. Such elevator flutter could lead to possible loss of control.
(f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(h)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
(i) For more information about this AD, contact George Duckett, Aerospace Engineer, New York ACO, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 228-7325; fax: (516) 794-5531; e-mail:
(j) To get information about the revisions to the maintenance program identified in this proposed AD, contact Viking Air Ltd., 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, BC Canada V8L 5V5; telephone: (800) 663-8444; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
The emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly, Part Number (P/N) 215-94711-2, has been found cracked or broken on a number of aeroplanes. Failure of the emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly in combination with other system failures such as an engine failure during take off or pitch control system jam, may result in a loss of control of the aeroplane.
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier,
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Andy Rambalakos, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7345; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly, Part Number (P/N) 215-94711-2, has been found cracked or broken on a number of aeroplanes. Failure of the emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly in combination with other system failures such as an engine failure during take off or pitch control system jam, may result in a loss of control of the aeroplane.
Revision 2 of this AD is issued to ensure that terminating action for this AD is carried out prior to the 2011 fire season.
The required actions include a general visual inspection to determine if either universal solid (round head) rivets or flush rivets of the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley are installed; replacing the solid rivets with flush rivets and installing new stiffeners on the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley, if necessary; a detailed inspection and a liquid penetrant inspection of the stiffeners for cracks, deformations, or signs of corrosion, and replacing the stiffeners with new stiffeners if necessary; and re-installing the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley using radius packers. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010; and Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 40 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,400, or $3,400 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by July 25, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 1051 through 1125 inclusive; Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 1056 through 1125 inclusive; and Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 2001 through 2085 inclusive; certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
The emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly, Part Number (P/N) 215-94711-2, has been found cracked or broken on a number of aeroplanes. Failure of the emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly in combination with other system failures such as an engine failure during take off or pitch control system jam, may result in a loss of control of the aeroplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 50 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection to determine if either universal solid (round head) rivets or flush rivets of the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley are installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
(h) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, universal solid rivets are determined to be installed: Within 50 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the solid rivets with flush rivets, and install new stiffeners on the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
(i) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, flush rivets are determined to be installed; and for airplanes on which flush rivets are installed in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the stiffeners for cracks, deformation, and signs of corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes). Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles, repeat the detailed inspections of the stiffeners. If any crack, deformation, or signs of corrosion are found, before further flight, replace the stiffeners with new stiffeners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
(j) Within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. Installation of the radius packers terminates the repetitive detailed inspections of the support bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Do a liquid penetrant inspection of the stiffeners having P/N 215-94711-6 and P/N 215-94711-8 for cracks, deformation, or signs of corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes). If any crack, deformation, or sign of corrosion is found, before further flight, replace damaged stiffeners with new stiffeners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
(2) Re-install the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley using radius packers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
(k) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD according to the service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1) Although Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011, has a compliance time of “No later than 01 June 2011,” for Part II—Terminating Action, this AD has a compliance time of “Within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” We have coordinated this difference with Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA).
(2) Although Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011, has an initial compliance time of “within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD” for identifying the type of rivet installed, this AD has a compliance time of “within 50 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” In addition, the follow-on inspections in paragraph (i) of this AD for airplanes on which flush rivets are determined to be installed, is “within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” We have coordinated this difference with TCCA.
(l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011; Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010; for related information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations for filing a claim for credit or refund. The regulations provide guidance to taxpayers generally as to the proper place to file a claim for credit or refund. The regulations are updated to reflect changes made by the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The regulations further are updated to reflect that the IRS may prescribe additional claim forms.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-137128-08), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-137128-08), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning submission of comments or request for a hearing,
This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 6402 of the Code authorizes the Secretary to make credits or refunds. Section 6511 provides the limitations period within which a taxpayer must file a claim for credit or refund and restricts the ability of the Secretary to issue a credit or refund unless the claim is filed by the taxpayer within that period. Section 7422 prohibits the maintenance of a suit for refund until a claim has been duly filed with the Secretary. Currently, § 301.6402-2(a)(2) provides generally that a claim for credit or refund needs to be filed with the service center serving the internal revenue district in which the tax was paid. The proposed regulations clarify that, unless otherwise directed, the proper place to file a claim for credit or refund is with the service center at which the taxpayer currently would be required to file a tax return for the type of tax to which the claim relates, irrespective of where the tax was paid or was required to have been paid.
This document also removes outdated portions of §§ 301.6402-2 and 301.6402-3 and revises the reference in § 301.6402-4 to the Joint Committee on Taxation threshold referral amount under section 6405.
If a taxpayer is required to file a claim for credit or refund on a particular form, then the claim must be filed in a manner consistent with that form and the related instructions. For example, to correct an amount reported on a Form 1040, “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,” Treasury regulation § 301.6402-3(a)(2) requires that the taxpayer file the claim on a Form 1040X, “Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.” Accordingly, a claim for refund of an overpayment of individual income taxes would need to be filed on a Form 1040X at the location specified in the instructions provided for the form. If filing instructions are not otherwise provided, a claim for credit or refund must be filed with the service center at which the taxpayer would be required to file a current tax return for the type of tax to which the claim relates. Section 301.6402-2(a)(2) is revised to clarify that claims should not be filed at a different location based upon where the tax either was paid or was required to have been paid. Nor would it be relevant if the tax was properly paid at a different location in a prior year because the taxpayer had a change in residence.
The IRS has prescribed various forms that must be used to file a claim for credit or refund for a particular tax. For example, as explained in this preamble, an individual taxpayer must use a Form 1040X to file a claim for refund of income tax. The proposed regulations would revise § 301.6402-2(c) to provide that taxpayers must use the form prescribed for filing a particular claim for credit or refund. When there is no alternative form prescribed, a claim for credit or refund is to be filed on a Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement.”
On July 1, 2008, final regulations (TD 9405) relating to employment tax adjustments and employment tax refund claims were published in the
The proposed regulations make technical revisions that remove the reference to “internal revenue districts” in § 301.6402-2(a)(2), because such reference has been made obsolete by the enactment of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-206, 112 Stat. 685. The technical revisions also remove the references to a district director or director of the regional service center in §§ 301.6402-3 and 301.6402-4, as those positions no longer exist within the IRS.
Treasury Decision 6950, 1968-1 CB 528 (33 FR 5354) (Aug. 4, 1968), revised paragraph (a)(2) of § 301.6402-2 to distinguish between claims filed before and claims filed on or after April 15, 1968. Those revisions provided that claims filed before April 15, 1968 must be filed in the office of the internal revenue officer to whom the tax was paid. For claims filed on or after April 15, 1968, claims were directed to be filed with the service center serving the internal revenue district in which the tax was paid.
Treasury Decision 7410, 1976-1 CB 384 (41 FR 11019) (Mar. 16, 1976), revised paragraph (c) of § 301.6402-2 to distinguish between claims filed before and claims filed on or after July 1, 1976. Those revisions provided that, except for claims for the refund of overpayments of income taxes filed on or after July 1, 1976, all refund claims for taxes, interest, penalties, and additions to tax needed to be filed on Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement.” Treasury Decision 7410 also revised paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 301.6402-3 to prescribe different form requirements for claims for the refund of overpayments of income taxes depending on whether the claim was filed before July 1, 1976, or would be filed on or after July 1, 1976.
The regulations are revised to remove the outdated guidance regarding the varying requirements based on these dates.
Section 6405 requires the advance referral of a report to the Joint Committee on Taxation regarding specified types of refunds or credits in excess of a threshold amount (currently $2,000,000). Section 1907(a)(1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Public Law 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1835, amended section 6405 to reference the “Joint Committee on Taxation,” instead of the “Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.” The proposed regulations would update the reference to the “Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation” in § 301.6402-4 with a reference to the “Joint Committee on Taxation.” Section 305(a) of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, Public Law 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-634, section 11834(a) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-560, and section 1210(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 1520, 1522, revised the threshold referral amount in section 6405 by replacing $100,000 with $2,000,000. To avoid the need to revise this regulation again to reflect any future change in the threshold amount, the parenthetical reference to the specific amount required for the section 6405 threshold referral is removed.
These rules, when they are promulgated as final regulations, will apply to claims for credit or refund filed on or after the date that the final regulations are published in the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to the regulations, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small businesses.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and 8 copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal author of the proposed regulations is Micah A. Levy, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration).
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of § 301.6091-1 (relating to hand-carried documents), the claim, together with appropriate supporting evidence, generally must be filed with the service center at which the taxpayer currently would be required to file a tax return for the type of tax to which the claim relates. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a taxpayer is required to file a claim for credit or refund on a particular form, then the claim must be filed in a manner consistent with such form and form instructions. If a taxpayer is filing a claim in response to an IRS notice or correspondence, then the claim must be filed in accordance with the specific instructions contained in the notice or correspondence regarding the proper address for filing. As to interest in the case of credits or refunds, see section 6611. See section 7502 for provisions treating timely mailing as timely filing, and section 7503 for the time for filing a claim when the last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.
(b) * * *
(2) The IRS does not have the authority to refund on equitable grounds penalties or other amounts legally collected.
(c)
(d)
(g)
(a) In the case of a claim for credit or refund of income tax—
(b) The filing of a properly executed income tax return shall, in any case in which the taxpayer is not required to show the tax on the form (see section 6014 and the regulations), be treated as a claim for refund and such return shall constitute a claim for refund within the meaning of section 6402 and section 6511 for the amount of the overpayment shown by the computation of the tax made by the Secretary on the basis of the return. Whether such claim is timely filed within the limitations period prescribed by section 6511 will be governed by the date on which the return is considered filed, except that if the requirements of § 301.7502-1 (relating to timely mailing treated as timely filing) are met, the claim shall be considered to have been filed on the date of the postmark stamped on the cover in which the return was mailed.
(e)
In certain cases, a taxpayer's payments in respect of a tax liability, made before the filing of the return, may exceed the amount of tax shown on the return. For example, such payments may arise in the case of income tax if the estimated tax payments or the credit for income tax withheld at the source on wages exceeds the amount of tax shown on the return, or if the installment payments based on a corporation`s estimate of its tax liability on an application for an extension of time to file its return exceeds the tax liability shown on the return subsequently filed. In any case in which the Secretary determines that the payments by the taxpayer (made within the period prescribed for payment and before the filing of the return) are in excess of the amount of tax shown on the return, the Secretary may make credit or refund of such overpayment without awaiting examination of the completed return and without awaiting filing of a claim for refund. The provisions of §§ 301.6402-2 and 301.6402-3 are applicable to such overpayment, and taxpayers should submit claims for refund (if the income tax return is not itself a claim for refund, as provided in § 301.6402-3) to protect themselves in the event the Secretary fails to make such determination and credit or refund. The provisions of section 6405 (relating to reports of refunds in excess of the statutorily prescribed threshold referral amount to the Joint Committee on Taxation) are not applicable to the overpayments described in this section caused by timely payments of tax which exceed the amount of tax shown on a timely filed return.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 8, 2011.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-101352-11), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-101352-11), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations Gregory A. Spring, (202) 435-5265; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) P. Taylor, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the rule does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available at
The principal author of these regulations is Gregory A. Spring of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 CFR U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(n) * * *
(2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.6038A-1(n)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.6038A-1T(n)(2) published elsewhere in this same issue of the
(d) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.6038A-2(d) is the same as the text of § 1.6038A-2T(d) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(e) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.6038A-2(e) is the same as the text of § 1.6038A-2T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) which was submitted on November 16, 2006 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This change to Allegheny County's Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations amends the existing requirements for sources locating in or impacting a nonattainment area in Allegheny County by incorporating
Comments must be received in writing by July 11, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0881 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Paul T. Wentworth, (215) 814-2183, or by e-mail at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the control of nitrogen oxide (NO
Written comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0286 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in
Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-mail at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 23, 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan for the control of NO
The SIP revision consists of a regulation to control NO
The SIP revision adds definitions and terms to Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 121.1, relating to definitions, used in the substantive provision of this SIP revision. In addition, the SIP revision adds a new regulation pertaining to the NO
EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision for the control of NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Pennsylvania's control of NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of availability of an environmental assessment.
This proposed rule proposes to extend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) prohibitions to all activities impacting the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon throughout its range except for two types of activities, scientific research and rescue/salvage activities, when those activities occur within the riverine range of the GOM DPS. The ESA section 9 prohibitions are comprehensive and pertain to any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Specifically, section 9 of the ESA prohibits the import, export, taking, possession, sale or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, delivery, receiving of, carrying, transportation, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any such species, or violation of any regulation pertaining to such species. On October 6, 2010, we, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), proposed to list the DPS of Atlantic sturgeon in the GOM as threatened under the ESA. When a species is listed as “threatened” under the ESA, we are required to issue protective regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA. Such protective regulations are ones deemed “necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species” and may include any act prohibited for endangered species under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. The prohibitions and exceptions proposed in this rule are deemed necessary and advisable for the conservation of this species. We expect that the result of extending such prohibitions will be to protect the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon from direct forms of take, such as physical injury or killing, and from indirect forms of take, such as harm that results from habitat degradation while still allowing scientific research as well as salvage of dead fish and rescue of injured fish by experienced personnel. These actions will help preserve and recover the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon by addressing the negative effects from stressors impeding recovery of the DPS.
Comments on this proposal must be received by August 9, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by the RIN No. 0648-AY96, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
We will accept anonymous comments (enter “n/a” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
The proposed rule and other reference materials regarding this determination are available electronically at
Lynn Lankshear, NMFS, Northeast Region (978) 282-8473, Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast Region (978) 282-8485 or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 713-1401.
As described in the
The prohibitions listed under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA automatically apply when a species is listed as endangered but not when listed as threatened. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from: (a) Importing any such species into, or exporting any such species from the U.S.; (b) taking any such species within the U.S. or the U.S. territorial sea; (c) taking any such species upon the high seas; (d)
In the case of a species listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue such regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1). Whether section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are necessary and advisable for a threatened species is largely dependent on the biological status of the species and the potential impacts of various activities on the species. The proposed rule (75 FR 61872) and Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT), 2007) provided extensive information on the status of the GOM DPS and impacts to Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS. The information is summarized here.
Genetics data and tagging information support the conclusion that the GOM DPS includes all anadromous Atlantic sturgeon whose freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the Maine/Canadian border southward to include all associated watersheds draining into the Gulf of Maine as far south as Chatham, MA. Within this range, Atlantic sturgeon have been documented from the Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Sheepscot, Saco, Piscataqua, and Merrimack rivers. The marine range, including coastal bays and estuaries, of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS extends from the Bay of Fundy, Canada to the St. Johns River, FL and overlaps throughout with the marine range of Atlantic sturgeon that originate from the other four U.S. DPSs that are proposed to be listed as endangered.
Because Atlantic sturgeon use both riverine waters and the marine environment, they are affected by a multitude of activities. Coast-wide commercial over-harvesting throughout the 19th century and most of the 20th century caused a precipitous decline in Atlantic sturgeon abundance for all of the U.S. Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. A coast-wide moratorium on harvesting Atlantic sturgeon was implemented in 1998 pursuant to Amendment 1 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic sturgeon (ASMFC, 1998). Retention of Atlantic sturgeon from the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was prohibited by NMFS in 1999 (64 FR 9449; February 26, 1999). However, despite these prohibitions on directed fishing for and retention of incidentally caught Atlantic sturgeon, other anthropogenic activities continue to take Atlantic sturgeon. These include incidental bycatch in commercial fisheries, vessel strikes, activities affecting water quality, and habitat disturbances such as dredging. Bycatch, water quality and dredging are primary stressors for the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT, 2007). As described in the proposed rule (75 FR 61872), new analyses suggest that the level of bycatch mortality is not sustainable for the GOM DPS in the long-term (ASMFC, 2007). With respect to habitat, the water quality for coastal waters north of Cape Cod is generally fair to good (EPA, 2008), and the majority of historical Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat is accessible in all but the Merrimack River of the GOM DPS (ASSRT, 2007). Nevertheless, it is difficult to verify whether Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat in the GOM DPS is fully functional. In addition, NMFS has not implemented any bycatch reduction measures specifically for Atlantic sturgeon, and existing bycatch reduction measures are inadequate for reducing bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon in federally regulated fisheries. NMFS does not have the authority or discretion to require action to reduce the effects of in-water projects (e.g., dredging) specifically for Atlantic sturgeon and there are no specific regulations requiring action(s) to reduce effects of in-water projects to Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS has limited authority and discretion by which to regulate vessel activities in areas where Atlantic sturgeon occur.
Comprehensive information on current abundance for the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon does not exist (ASSRT, 2007). However, surveys have provided qualitative information on Atlantic sturgeon abundance for the GOM DPS, including river-specific information on abundance, trends, evidence of spawning, and/or documentation of multiple year-classes. For example, new evidence of Atlantic sturgeon year-round presence in the Saco River, where they have not been observed for many years, suggests that the numbers of Atlantic sturgeon in the GOM DPS may be increasing. Additionally, the catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) of subadult Atlantic sturgeon during gill net surveys in the Kennebec River increased considerably from 1977-2000 (1977 B 1981 CPUE = 0.30 versus 1998 B 2000 CPUE = 7.43) while the CPUE of adult Atlantic sturgeon showed a slight increase over the same time period (1977-1981 CPUE = 0.12 versus 1998-2000 CPUE = 0.21) (Squiers, 2004).
The Kennebec River is currently the only known spawning river for the GOM DPS. Spawning likely occurs in the Penobscot River, and Atlantic sturgeon that use other historical spawning rivers may represent additional spawning groups (ASSRT, 2007). However, there is, as yet, no evidence that Atlantic sturgeon of the GOM DPS spawn in any river other than the Kennebec River (ASSRT, 2007).
Protecting the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon from direct forms of take, such as physical injury or killing, whether incidental or intentional, will help preserve and recover the DPS's remaining subpopulations. Protecting the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon from indirect forms of take, such as harm that results from habitat degradation, will likewise help preserve the DPS's subpopulations and also decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors impeding recovery of the DPS. We therefore propose to extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) prohibitions to all activities impacting the GOM DPS throughout its range except for two types of activities, scientific research and rescue/salvage activities, when those activities occur within the riverine range of the GOM DPS. Specifically, we propose to exempt from the section 9(a)(1)(B) take prohibitions: (a) Scientific research of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS when conducted in the manner specified in this proposed rule; and, (b) salvaging dead and aiding/resuscitating live Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS by NMFS personnel or their designated agents as specified in this
On July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively, the “Services”) published a policy committing us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species range.
Based upon available information, we believe that the activities that may take Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS include, but are not limited to: (1) Commercial and recreational fisheries; (2) scientific research and monitoring of Atlantic sturgeon, (3) emergency rescue/salvage of Atlantic sturgeon; (4) scientific research and monitoring directed at other species; (5) habitat altering activities affecting passage of adult sturgeon to and from spawning areas and availability of habitat for egg, larval or juvenile stages; (6) entrainment and impingement of all life stages of GOM DPS sturgeon during the operation of water diversions, dredging projects, and power plants; (7) activities impacting water quality for all life stages of GOM DPS sturgeon such as discharge, dumping, or applications of toxic chemicals, pollutants, or pesticides into waters or areas that contain GOM DPS sturgeon; (8) vessel strikes; and, (9) introduction or release of non-native species that are likely to alter the habitats of, or to compete for space or food, with GOM DPS sturgeon.
This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide examples of the types of activities that are most likely to result in take of GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon and a violation of this proposed rule (unless within the specific exemptions proposed by this rule). Whether a take results from a particular activity is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. The fact that an activity may fall within one of these categories does not mean that the specific activity will cause a take. Due to such factors as location and scope, specific actions may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on the species. Further, an activity not listed here may in fact result in a take. Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a take prohibited by this rule, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be directed to NMFS—Northeast Regional Office (see
Section 9(a)(1)(A), 10(a)(1)(A), and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide the authority to grant exemptions to the section 9 prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may authorize exemptions to any of the section 9 prohibitions and may be issued to Federal and non-Federal entities conducting research or conservation activities that involve directed (i.e., intentional) take of listed species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) take permits may be issued to non-Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take listed species in the course of an otherwise legal activity. These section 10 permits are mechanisms for providing exemptions to the section 9(a)(1)(B) prohibitions should the GOM DPS become listed, and impacts on the GOM DPS from actions in compliance with such permits would not constitute violations of this proposed rule.
Likewise, should the GOM DPS become listed, federally funded or approved activities that incidentally take Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS would not constitute violations of this proposed rule when the activities are conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued through a biological opinion provided by NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS if actions they fund, authorize, or carry out may affect any ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. Section 7 authorizes NMFS to issue an incidental take statement with a biological opinion if NMFS has determined that the activity may adversely affect, but will not jeopardize, the continued existence of the listed species. Therefore, if this rule and the proposed rule to list the GOM DPS are finalized, incidental take of GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon resulting from federally funded, authorized, or implemented activities would not violate the section 9(a)(1)(B) or 9(a)(1)(C) take prohibitions, provided the activities are conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement and all reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize the effects of the taking on the listed species.
As described above, we have determined that in certain circumstances, extending the ESA section 9(a)(1)(B) take prohibitions to the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is not necessary and advisable. We are proposing two exemptions to these prohibitions for activities that provide for the conservation of the GOM DPS: (1) Scientific research conducted on GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon within the riverine portion of its range and in accordance with accepted NMFS protocol(s); and, (2) salvage of dead and recovery of live stranded or injured GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon found within the riverine range of the GOM DPS. These exemptions are described in more detail rule in later sections (see “Exemption for Scientific Research” and “Salvage and Recovery” below).
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(B) apply to all other activities that do not meet the specific exemptions for scientific research, salvage and recovery as described in this proposed rule. All other prohibitions of sections 9(a)(1)(A) and 9(a)(1)(C) through 9(a)(1)(G) would apply to the GOM DPS unless authorized under a section 10 permit or through consultation under section 7 as previously described.
In determining that it is not necessary and advisable to apply ESA section 9 take prohibitions on the certain activities described here, we recognize that new information may require a reevaluation of that conclusion at any time. For any of the exemptions from the prohibitions described in this proposed rule, we will periodically evaluate the activity's effect on the conservation of the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. We will impose take prohibitions on the activities previously exempted through rulemaking if we determine that it is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.
Adult and subadult Atlantic sturgeon that originate from different rivers mix in the marine environment (Stein
To ensure that the proposed exemption would result in the taking of only GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon, we are proposing that the scientific research exemption to the section 9(a)(1)(B) take prohibitions apply only to Atlantic sturgeon found within the riverine range of the GOM DPS (Table 1). Within-river boundaries for the proposed exemptions were selected using reported salinity data, threshold salinities of less than 20 ppt (highest reported value for bottom salinity was used, when available), and identification of easily recognizable landmarks, such as a bridge, located at or upstream of the location where the referenced salinity measurement was taken. For example, for the Kennebec River (and Androscoggin, which flows into the Kennebec above the salinity-based cutoff point), the location where salinity is unlikely to exceed 20 ppt was determined using Mayer
Many important aspects of Atlantic sturgeon life history are still unknown (Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Van den Avyle, 1983; Smith and Dingley, 1984; Smith and Clugston, 1997; Bain, 1997; Bemis and Kynard, 1997; Kynard and Horgan, 2002; ASSRT 2007). Scientific research (including monitoring) is vital for improving our understanding of the status and risks facing Atlantic sturgeon, and providing critical information for assessing the effectiveness of current and future management practices. Research activities aid in the conservation of listed species by furthering our understanding of the species' life history and biological requirements. We recognize, however, that many scientific research activities involve take and may pose some level of risk to individuals or to the species. Therefore, it is necessary for research activities to be carried out in a manner that minimizes the adverse impacts of the activities on individuals and the species while obtaining crucial information that will benefit the species.
Properly planned and implemented research and assessment are critical to minimizing the risks and maximizing the conservation benefit of the research. Guidelines developed by sturgeon researchers in cooperation with NMFS for Atlantic and other sturgeon species have helped facilitate standardization of research protocols while minimizing risk to the species as a result of handling and sampling. In 2000, Moser
Technologies and methods for research that do not require capture of individual sturgeon are becoming more widely available (e.g., side-scan sonar, Didson, in-water detection technology). These technologies have been shown to be effective at providing needed information on, among other things, Atlantic sturgeon habitat use and abundance, while eliminating the likelihood of injury or mortality to the sturgeon that can result from capture and handling. Technological advances are also making it possible to use non-invasive methods (e.g., ultrasound) in place of invasive methods (e.g., laparoscopy) for sturgeon research, thus reducing the risk of harm to the sturgeon even when capture and handling is necessary. Damon-Randall
As described above, the collection of needed scientific information provides a conservation benefit to ESA-listed species. The permitting process (see 50 CFR parts 222, 223 and 224) is intended to ensure that, in the course of conducting bona-fide research, work is conducted in a manner that minimizes harm (including injury and death) to the species and individual animals. However, research of the GOM DPS that is already in progress may potentially be impeded if researchers are required to suspend work and obtain a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, given that permit processing times can take 90 days or more, and that NMFS cannot process and finalize a permit request until publication of a final rule listing the GOM DPS under the ESA. Delay or interruption of research could negatively affect the ability to maintain time-series data and acquisition of information necessary for the survival and recovery of the species. Therefore, we conclude that it is not necessary and advisable to impose the ESA-take prohibitions on research that results in take, but not harm, of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS under certain specified conditions.
To comply with the research exemption proposed in this rule, researcher(s) would be required to submit a notice to NMFS's Northeast Regional Administrator (RA) at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such research, providing: (a) A statement describing the purpose of the research; (b) a detailed description of the study design, including all techniques and methodologies for sampling, and the data to be collected; (c) a list of the researchers performing the proposed research activities, including information demonstrating the level of experience for each of the technologies/methods to be used and the institution to which each is affiliated; (d) an estimate of the total take anticipated from such research by life stage; and, (e) the time period and specific location(s) of the research. To ensure that Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS, Atlantic sturgeon belonging to other DPSs, or any other ESA-listed species are not harmed as a result of this exemption to the 9(a)(1)(B) take prohibitions, and to monitor and enforce the use of this exemption, research activities: (a) Must be conducted in accordance with NMFS-approved methods for Atlantic sturgeon or use technologies that do not require capture or handling of Atlantic sturgeon; (b) must be directed at Atlantic sturgeon of the GOM DPS and not be incidental to research of another species; (c) must be conducted within the riverine range of the GOM DPS as specified in this rule; (d) must be intended as involving only non-lethal take; (e) must not take Atlantic sturgeon for artificial spawning or enhancement activities; (f) must comply with all other laws, including state permits, if applicable; and, (g) must be conducted by researchers with documented experience conducting the proposed methodologies/techniques on Atlantic sturgeon or another sturgeon species. Once the RA receives information for scientific research as described above, the RA will review the information and respond to the researcher(s) with a letter acknowledging that the research meets the exemption to the take prohibitions applied to Atlantic sturgeon GOM DPS, or a letter informing the researcher(s) that the exemption does not apply to the proposed research. The RA's letter is not a permit, and the letter does not provide authorization to conduct the research. Rather, the letter is intended as an acknowledgement that the specified research is or is not consistent with the exemption to the take prohibitions for scientific research provided in this rule. In order to give researchers enough time to submit a letter to the RA, we propose that ESA section 9 take prohibitions not apply to the scientific research that would otherwise fall under the exemption until two months after publication of a final section 4(d) rule.
The researcher(s) must provide a report of the research results to the RA no later than 60 days following completion or termination of the research activity, including the total take (by life stage) and the method of take (e.g., harassment, capture, handling, etc.). For multi-year studies, researchers must provide an annual report to the RA summarizing the results to date, including the number of Atlantic sturgeon takes (by life stage) and the method of take (e.g., harassment, capture, handling, etc.). The research must be immediately suspended and the RA notified if any aspect of the research results in or is believed to have resulted in take causing harm (i.e., injury or death) to any Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS, or take (with or without causing harm) of any other ESA-listed species for which the researcher does not have an incidental take permit issued in accordance with Section 10(a)(1)(B).
To ensure that only Atlantic sturgeon listed as threatened would be affected, this proposed exemption would apply only to Atlantic sturgeon found within the riverine range of the GOM DPS (Table 1) given the overlap in distribution of all five U.S. DPSs within marine waters.
Atlantic sturgeon carcasses and live, stranded sturgeon can provide pertinent life history data and information on activities affecting the GOM DPS. Collection of samples, as appropriate, from carcasses and live stranded or injured sturgeon can also help reduce the need for the intentional capture of Atlantic sturgeon for scientific research.
In order to obtain the most information, carcasses must be collected and transported as quickly as possible to an appropriate facility. Similarly, prompt attention to a live, stranded or injured sturgeon will increase its chances of survival. NMFS does not have sufficient personnel throughout the riverine range of the GOM DPS to respond promptly to all Atlantic sturgeon salvage and recovery events. NMFS does, however, work cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and state wildlife agencies for salvage and recovery events involving other protected species including shortnose sturgeon, sea turtles and marine mammals. Some exemptions to the ESA take prohibitions for salvage or to aid a sick or injured animal already exist for some of these species. Therefore, we propose a similar exemption from the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(B) for any agent or employee of NMFS, FWS, or any other Federal land or water management agency, or any agent or employee of a state agency responsible for fish and wildlife who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, when acting in the course of his or her official duties to take Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS without a permit if such taking is necessary to salvage a dead specimen, which may be useful for scientific study; dispose of a dead specimen; or aid a sick, injured, or stranded specimen. Whenever possible, live specimens must be returned to their aquatic environment as soon as possible. This exception to the take prohibitions would only apply if the action is reported to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator within 30 days of occurrence of the event.
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available upon request (see
Whenever a species is listed as threatened, the ESA requires that we issue such regulations as we deem necessary and advisable to provide for its conservation. Accordingly, the promulgation of ESA section 4(d) protective regulations is subject to the requirements of NEPA, and we have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the proposed 4(d) regulations and alternatives. We are seeking comment on the draft EA, which is available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site (
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The proposed action would establish protective regulations for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (GOM DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS has proposed to list the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened, and to list four other Atlantic sturgeon DPSs as endangered (75 FR 61872 and 75 FR 61904; October 6, 2010). All five DPSs share the same marine range, but each DPS has a unique riverine range.
The prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA apply automatically when a species is listed as endangered but not when a species is listed as threatened. In the case of threatened species, section 4(d) of the ESA leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether and to what extent to extend the section 9 prohibitions of the ESA and directs the agency to issue regulations it considers necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Protecting the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon from direct forms of take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these) and indirect forms of take, such as harm that results from habitat degradation, will help preserve and recover the DPS. However, applying the section 9(a)(1) prohibitions to all forms of take for GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon could impede necessary scientific research given the lengthy processing time to acquire a section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research permit. Scientific research activities aid in the conservation of listed species by furthering our understanding of the species' life history and biological requirements. Collection of samples, as appropriate, from carcasses and live stranded or injured sturgeon can also help reduce the need for the intentional capture of Atlantic sturgeon for scientific research. Therefore, we propose to extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) prohibitions to all activities impacting the GOM DPS throughout its range except for: (1) Scientific research conducted on GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon within the riverine portion of its range and in accordance with accepted NMFS protocol(s); and, (2) salvage of dead and recovery of live stranded or injured GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon found within the riverine range of the GOM DPS.
Within the marine range of the GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon, the section 9(a)(1) prohibitions proposed by this action are the same as the prohibitions that will automatically apply to the same area upon listing of any of the other four DPSs as endangered. Therefore, the entities affected by this action are those which conduct the activities exempted from the section 9 prohibitions for GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon. These are Federal and state agencies, research institutions and universities which conduct scientific research, salvage, and recovery activities for Atlantic sturgeon within the river range of the GOM DPS. The only impact to these entities would be that scientific research, salvage of dead and recovery of live injured GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon in the river portion of its range could take place without a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. This action would not impose any additional economic impacts on these affected entities.
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been submitted to OMB for review and approval. Public reporting burden per response for this collection of information is estimated to average: (1) 40 hours to prepare reports on research of GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon; and (2) 5 hours to prepare reports on emergency rescue, salvage or disposal of GOM DPS Atlantic sturgeon. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
The Information Quality Act directed the Office of Management and Budget to issue government wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by federal agencies.” Under the NOAA guidelines, this action is considered a Natural Resource Plan. It is a composite of several types of information from a variety of sources. Compliance of this document with NOAA guidelines is evaluated below.
•
•
•
In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant state agencies in each state in which Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS occurs as well as the ASMFC, and they will be invited to comment. We intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the States and ASMFC, and other affected local or regional entities, giving careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.
E.O. 12898 requires that Federal actions address environmental justice in decision-making process. In particular, the environmental effects of the actions should not have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income communities. The proposed protective regulations are not expected to have a disproportionately high effect on minority populations or low-income populations.
Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that all Federal activities that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable. NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved Coastal Zone Management Programs of each of the states within the range of the GOM DPS. Letters documenting NMFS's determination, along with the proposed rule, have been sent to the coastal zone management program offices in each affected state. A list of the specific state contacts and a copy of the letters are available upon request.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
2. In subpart B, add § 223.211 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) The scientific research is conducted in accordance with NMFS-approved methods for Atlantic sturgeon or uses technologies that do not require capture or handling of Atlantic sturgeon;
(ii) The research is directed at Atlantic sturgeon of the GOM DPS and is not incidental to research of another species;
(iii) The research is conducted upstream of the U.S. Route 1 Bridge at Newburyport, MA on the Merrimack River, upstream of Leigh's Mill Pond, South Berwick, ME on the Piscataqua River, upstream of the Main Street Bridge, Biddeford, ME on the Saco River, upstream of the U.S. Route 1 Bridge at Bath, ME on the Kennebec River, upstream of the Sheepscot Road Bridge at Newcastle, ME on the Sheepscot River, or upstream of Cove Brook at Winterport, ME on the Penobscot River (i.e., within the riverine range of the GOM DPS);
(iv) The research is conducted in compliance with all other laws, including state permits, if applicable;
(v) The research is conducted by researchers with documented experience conducting the proposed methodologies/techniques on Atlantic sturgeon or another sturgeon species;
(vi) Researchers make every effort to ensure that take is non-lethal;
(vii) Take does not involve artificial spawning or enhancement activities;
(viii) The researcher provides the following to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such research (or, for ongoing research, within 60 days of issuance of a final
(ix) Reports that include the total take (by life stage) and the method of taking (e.g., harassment, capture, handling) are provided to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator no later than 60 days following completion or termination of the research activity, or annually for multi-year studies; and
(x) The researcher(s) immediately suspend field studies and report to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator if any aspect of the research results in or is believed to have resulted in take causing injury or mortality of any Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the GOM DPS, or take (with or without causing injury or mortality) of any other ESA-listed species for which the researcher does not have an incidental take permit issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA.
(2)
(i) The activity is conducted by an employee of NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, any other Federal land or water management agency, or any agent or employee of a state agency responsible for fish and wildlife who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, when acting in the course of his or her official duties;
(ii) The activity is conducted in compliance with all other laws, including state permits, if applicable;
(iii) The activity is conducted upstream of the U.S. Route 1 Bridge at Newburyport, MA on the Merrimack River, upstream of Leigh's Mill Pond, South Berwick, ME on the Piscataqua River, upstream of the Main Street Bridge, Biddeford, ME on the Saco River, upstream of the U.S. Route 1 Bridge at Bath, ME on the Kennebec River, upstream of the Sheepscot Road Bridge at Newcastle, ME on the Sheepscot River, or upstream of Cove Brook at Winterport, ME on the Penobscot River (i.e., within the riverine range of the GOM DPS);
(iv) Live specimens are returned to their natural environment as soon as the sturgeon is no longer in danger (i.e., sick or injured); and
(v) The Northeast Regional Administrator is notified within 30 days after such an event whether the activity was a salvage or recovery, the individual(s) who salvaged or recovered the sturgeon, his or her agency affiliation, and the disposition of the specimen.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and withdrawal.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is withdrawing a notice soliciting comments on its proposed revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins. Based on the petitioner's request to withdraw their petition, the agency has decided not to proceed with this action.
Myron Betts, Inspection and Standardization Section, Processed Products Branch (PPB), Fruit and Vegetable Programs (FV), AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 0709, South Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250;
On February 2, 2005, AMS received a petition from the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC), requesting revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins. These standards are issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627).
The petitioner requested that AMS revise the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins, Type I, Seedless Raisins. The revision would add a third sub-type, “Vine-dried (without the application of drying chemicals or materials)” and change the existing sub-type for “Dipped, Vine-dried or similarly processed raisins” to “Dipped, Vine-dried, treated with drying chemicals or materials”.
On February 28, 2006, AMS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the
On July 21, 2010, AMS asked the RAC if they would like to adopt the proposed changes or withdraw the petition. The RAC could not agree on the discussion draft language.
In September 2010, AMS notified the RAC of its plan to withdraw the action to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins. The RAC agreed to bring up the issue again during their October 5, 2010, meeting. In October 2010 the RAC informed AMS that they had interest in keeping the process on the proposed revision open.
In March 2011, the RAC requested that the proposed change to the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins be withdrawn.
AMS has decided not to proceed further with the proposed revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins and it is hereby withdrawn.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request extension of approval of an information collection associated with Animal Welfare Act regulations for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 9, 2011.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on the Animal Welfare Act regulations, contact Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-7833. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 through 3 were promulgated under the AWA to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of regulated animals under the Act. The regulations in 9 CFR part 2 require documentation of specified information by dealers, research institutions, exhibitors, carriers (including foreign air carriers), and intermediate handlers. The regulations in 9 CFR part 2 also require that facilities that use animals for regulated purposes obtain a license or register with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Before being issued a USDA license, individuals are required to undergo prelicense inspections; once licensed, a licensee must periodically renew the license.
To help ensure compliance with the AWA regulations, APHIS performs unannounced inspections of regulated facilities. A significant component of the inspection process is review of records that must be established and maintained by regulated facilities. The information contained in these records is used by APHIS inspectors to ensure that dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers comply with the Act and regulations.
Facilities must make and maintain records that contain official identification for all dogs and cats and certification of those animals received from pounds, shelters, and private individuals. These records are used to ensure that stolen pets are not used for regulated activities. Dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities that acquire animals from nonlicensed persons are required to have the owners of the animals sign a certification statement verifying the owner's exemption from licensing under the Act. Records must also be maintained for animals other than dogs and cats when the animals are used for purposes regulated under the Act.
Research facilities must also make and maintain additional records for animals covered under the Act that are used for teaching, testing, and experimentation. This information is used by APHIS personnel to review the research facility's animal care and use program.
APHIS needs the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in 9 CFR part 2 to enforce the Act and regulations. APHIS also uses the collected information to provide a mandatory annual report of animal welfare activities to Congress.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to revise an information collection associated with regulations to prevent the interstate spread of swine diseases and to request extension of approval of the information collection to protect swine health.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 9, 2011.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on the swine health protection program, contact Dr. Dave Pyburn, Staff Veterinarian, Aquaculture, Swine, Equine, and Poultry Programs, VS, APHIS, 210 Walnut Street, Room 891, Des Moines, IA 50309; (515) 284-4122. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
The Swine Health Protection Act (the Act) prohibits the feeding of garbage to swine unless the garbage has been treated to kill disease organisms. Untreated garbage is one of the primary media through which numerous infectious and communicable diseases can be transmitted to swine. APHIS' regulations promulgated under the Act, which are located at 9 CFR part 166, require that, before garbage may be fed to swine, it must be treated at a facility holding a valid permit to treat the garbage and must be treated according to the regulations.
APHIS requires certain information in order to license (issue a permit to) a facility to operate and in order to monitor the facility for compliance with the regulations. This information is collected from applications for a license to operate a garbage treatment facility, records of the destination and date of removal of all food waste or garbage from the treatment facility, and food waste reports. With this information, we are able to carefully monitor garbage treatment facilities to ensure that they are meeting our requirements. We are revising the current collection by adding an activity for tracking of cancellation of licenses by licensees and no longer requiring licensees to acknowledge receipt of the Act and regulations. The information provided by the combined activities is critical in preventing the interstate spread of various swine diseases and, therefore, plays a vital role in our swine health protection program.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the interstate movement of sheep and goats to control the spread of scrapie.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 9, 2011.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on regulations for the interstate movement of sheep and goats to control the spread of scrapie, contact Dr. Michele April, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Surveillance Unit, CEAH, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-6954. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Scrapie is a progressive, degenerative, and eventually fatal disease affecting the nervous system of sheep and goats. Its control is complicated because the disease has an extremely long incubation period without clinical signs of disease and no known treatment.
APHIS regulations in 9 CFR part 71 restrict the interstate movement of sheep and goats to control the spread of scrapie and include provisions for livestock facilities that handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce to be approved by APHIS. These requirements are intended to ensure that such facilities are constructed and operated in a manner that will help prevent the spread of scrapie and involve information collection activities, including an Approval of Livestock and Facilities Agreement and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Shoshone Resource Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a conference call on June 28, 2011. 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 conference call is to welcome two new members and review the second set of project submittals.
The conference call will be held June 28, 2011, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held via conference call.
Olga Troxel, Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, Shoshone National Forest Supervisor's Office, (307) 578-5164.
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. Members of the public who wish to participate may do so by calling Olga Troxel, Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, for conference call information. The following business will be conducted: (1) Welcome two new members, and (2) Review second set of project submittals. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by the ranger districts, forests and regional office of the Intermountain Region to publish legal notices required under 36 CFR parts 215, 218, and 219. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers the Forest Service will use to publish notices of proposed
Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin on or after June 2011. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until October 2011, when another notice will be published in the
Claire Huking, Regional Appeals Coordinator, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401, and phone (801) 625-5146.
The administrative procedures at 36 CFR part 215, 218, and 219 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 215, 218 and 219. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or appeal period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of re-opening of public comment period.
On December 7, 2010, NRCS published in the
Comments to the Notice published in the
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
Phyllis Watkins, Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Acting Forms Manager, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4235 South Building, Washington, DC 20250; Telephone: (202) 720-3770.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at: (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
On December 7, 2010, NRCS published in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden hours (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 included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection, and will become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of funds availability.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces its Public Television Digital Transition Grant Program application window for fiscal year (FY) 2011. The FY 2011 funding for the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program is $4,491,000.
You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:
• Paper copies must carry proof of shipping no later than July 25, 2011 to be eligible for FY 2011 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2011 grant funding.
• Electronic copies must be received by July 25, 2011 to be eligible for FY 2011 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2011 grant funding.
You may obtain the application guide and materials for the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program at the following sources:
1. The Internet at
2. You may also request the application guide and materials from RUS by contacting the appropriate individual listed in Section VII of the
1.
2.
Gary B. Allan, Chief, Universal Services Branch, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, telephone: 202-690-4493, fax: 202-720-1051.
I. Funding Opportunity: Brief introduction to the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program.
II. Award Information: Maximum amounts.
III. Eligibility Information: Who is eligible, what kinds of projects are eligible, what criteria determine basic eligibility.
IV. Application and Submission Information: Where to get application materials, what constitutes a completed application, how and where to submit applications, deadlines, items that are eligible.
V. Application Review Information: Considerations and preferences, scoring criteria, review standards, selection information.
VI. Award Administration Information: Award notice information, award recipient reporting requirements.
VII. Agency Contacts: Web, phone, fax, email, contact name.
As part of the nation's transition to digital television, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all television broadcasters to have converted their transmitters to broadcast digital signals by June 12, 2009. While stations must broadcast their main transmitter signal in digital, many rural stations have yet to complete a full digital transition of their stations across all equipment. Rural stations often have translators serving small or isolated areas and some of these have not completed the transition to digital. Because the FCC deadline did not apply to translators, they are allowed to continue broadcasting in analog. Some rural stations also have not fully converted their production and studio equipment to digital, which has impaired their ability to provide the same quality local programming that they provided in analog. The digital transition has also created some service gaps where households that received an analog signal are now unable to receive a digital signal. For rural households the digital transition has meant in some cases diminished over-the-air public television service. These rural households are the focus of the Agency's Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program.
Most applications to the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program have sought assistance towards the goal of replicating analog coverage areas through transmitter and translator transitions. The first priority has been to initiate digital broadcasting from their main transmitters. As many stations have completed the digital transition of their transmitters, the focus has shifted to power upgrades and translators, as well as digital program production equipment and multicasting/datacasting equipment. There are some rural stations that may need to install translators to provide fill-in service to areas that previously received analog but are now unable to receive digital. In FY 2010, 14 awards were made for the following: Translators, studio and production equipment, master control equipment, and microwave equipment. When compared with the first few years of the program, as the digital transition progresses, more applications were received for translators and master control and production equipment, than for transmitters. Some stations may not have achieved full analog parity in program management and creation even after the June 12, 2009, deadline. Continuation of reliable public television service to all current patrons understandably is still the focus for many broadcasters.
It is important for public television stations to be able to tailor their programs and services (e.g., education services, public health, homeland security, and local culture) to the needs of their rural constituents. If public television programming is lost, many school systems may be left without educational programming they count on for curriculum compliance.
This notice has been formatted to conform to a policy directive issued by the Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published in the
1. The amount available for grants for FY 2011 is $4,491,000. The maximum amount for grants under this program is $750,000 per public television station per year.
2. Assistance instrument: Grant documents appropriate to the project will be executed with successful applicants prior to any advance of funds.
Award documents specify the term of each award, and due to uncertainties in regulatory approvals of digital television broadcast facilities, the Agency will consider a one-time request to extend the period during which grant funding is available.
1. Public television stations which serve rural areas are eligible for Public Television Station Digital Transition Grants. A public television station is a noncommercial educational television broadcast station that is qualified for Community Service Grants by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under section 396(k) of the Communications Act of 1934.
2. Individuals are not eligible for Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program financial assistance directly.
1. Grants shall be made to perform digital transitions of television broadcasting serving rural areas. Grant funds may be used to acquire, lease, and/or install facilities and software necessary to the digital transition. Specific purposes include:
a. Digital transmitters, translators, and repeaters, including all facilities required to initiate DTV broadcasting. All broadcast facilities acquired with grant funds shall be capable of delivering DTV programming and HDTV programming, at both the interim and final channel and power authorizations. There is no limit to the number of transmitters or translators that may be included in an application;
b. Power upgrades of existing DTV transmitter equipment, including replacement of existing low-power digital transmitters with digital transmitters capable of delivering the final authorized power level;
c. Studio-to-transmitter links;
d. Equipment to allow local control over digital content and programming, including master control equipment;
e. Digital program production equipment, including cameras, editing, mixing and storage equipment;
f. Multicasting and datacasting equipment;
g. Cost of the lease of facilities, if any, for up to three years; and,
h. Associated engineering and environmental studies necessary to implementation.
2. Matching contributions: There is no requirement for matching funds in this program (see 7 CFR 1740.5).
3. The following are not eligible for grant funding (see 7 CFR 1740.7):
a. Funding for ongoing operations or for facilities that will not be owned by the applicant, except for leased facilities as provided above;
b. Costs of salaries, wages, and employee benefits of public television
c. Portions of a project that have been funded by any other source;
d. Items bought or built prior to the application deadline specified in this Notice of Solicitation of Applications.
See paragraph IV.B of this notice for a summary discussion of the items that make up a completed application. You will find more complete information in the FY 2011 Public Television Digital Transition Grant Program Application Guide. You may also refer to 7 CFR 1740.9 for completed grant application items.
The application guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation are available from these sources:
1. The Internet:
2. The RUS Advanced Services Division, for paper copies of these materials: (202) 690-4493.
1. Detailed information on each item required can be found in the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation and application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide. This Notice does not change the requirements for a completed application specified in the program regulation. The program regulation and application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items listed and the application guide provides all necessary forms and sample worksheets.
2. A completed application must include the following documentation, studies, reports and information in form satisfactory to RUS. Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions in 7 CFR part 1740, subpart A, and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Applicants must use the application guide for this program containing instructions and all necessary forms, as well as other important information, in preparing their application. Completed applications must include the following:
a. An application for Federal assistance, Standard Form 424.
b. An executive summary, not to exceed two pages, describing the public television station, its service area and offerings, its current digital transition status, and the proposed project.
c. Evidence of the applicant's eligibility to apply under this Notice, demonstrating that the applicant is a Public Television Station as defined in this Notice, and that it is required by the FCC to perform the digital transition.
d. A spreadsheet showing the total project cost, with a breakdown of items sufficient to enable RUS to determine individual item eligibility.
e. A coverage contour map showing the digital television coverage area of the application project. This map must show the counties (or county) comprising the Core Coverage Area by shading and by name. Partial counties included in the applicant's Core Coverage Area must be identified as partial and must contain an attachment with the applicant's estimate of the percentage that its coverage contour comprises of the total area of the county (In the Application Guide, see Section D. Scoring Documentation). If the application is for a translator, the coverage area may be estimated by the applicant through computer modeling or some other reasonable method, and this estimate is subject to acceptance by RUS.
f. The applicant's estimate of its Rurality score, supported by a worksheet showing the population of its Core Coverage Area, and the urban and rural populations within the Core Coverage Area. The data source for the urban and rural components of that population must be identified. If the application includes computations made by a consultant or other organization outside the public television station, the application shall state the details of that collaboration.
g. The applicant's estimate of its Economic Need score, supported by a worksheet showing the National School Lunch Program eligibility levels for all school districts within the Core Coverage Area and averaging these eligibility percentages. The application must include a statement from the state or local organization that administers the NSLP program certifying that the school district scores used in the computations are accurate. Applicants are to use the most recent data available. Some official NSLP data is posted on state and/or local government Web sites, in which case a printout of the data may be provided as long as it documents the Web site source.
h. A presentation not to exceed five pages demonstrating the Critical Need for the project.
i. Evidence that the FCC has authorized the initiation of digital broadcasting at the project sites. In the event that an FCC construction permit has not been issued for one or more sites, RUS may include those sites in the grant, and make advance of funds for that site conditional upon the submission of a construction permit.
j. Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence or certification that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following (Sample certifications are provided in the application guide.):
(1) Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination;
(2) Architectural barriers;
(3) Flood hazard area precautions;
(4) Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
(5) Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (41 U.S.C. 701);
(6) Debarment, Suspension; and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions;
(7) Lobbying for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352).
k. Environmental impact and historic preservation. The applicant must provide details of the digital transition's impact on the environment and historic preservation, and comply with 7 CFR Part 1794, which contains the Agency's policies and procedures for implementing a variety of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders generally pertaining to the protection of the quality of the human environment. This must be contained in a separate section entitled “Environmental Impact of the Digital Transition,” and must include the Environmental Questionnaire/Certification, available from RUS, describing the impact of its digital transition. Submission of the Environmental Questionnaire/Certification alone does not constitute compliance with 7 CFR part 1794.
3. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for grants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see
4. Central Contractor Registration (CCR).
a. In accordance with 2 CFR part 25, applicants, whether applying electronically or by paper, must be registered in the CCR prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the CCR at
b. The CCR registration must remain active, with current information, at all times during which an entity has an application under consideration by an agency or has an active Federal Award. To remain registered in the CCR database after the initial registration, the applicant is required to review and update, on an annual basis from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates, its information in the CCR database to ensure it is current, accurate and complete.
1. Applications submitted on paper: Submit the original application and two (2) copies to RUS.
2. Electronically submitted applications: The additional paper copies for RUS are not necessary if you submit the application electronically through
Grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically.
1. Submitting applications on paper.
a. Address paper applications for grants to the Telecommunications Program, RUS, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2844, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Acting Director, Advanced Services Division.”
b. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping consisting of one of the following:
(i) A legibly dated postmark applied by the U. S. Postal Service;
(ii) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or
(iii) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
c. Non-USPS-applied postage dating, i.e. dated postage meter stamps, do not constitute proof of the date of mailing.
d. Due to screening procedures at the Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents. RUS encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method.
2. Electronically submitted applications.
a. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail.
b. Electronic applications for grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at
c. How to use Grants.gov:
(i) Navigate your Web browser to
(ii) Follow the instructions on that Web site to find grant information.
(iii) Download a copy of the application package.
(iv) Complete the package off-line.
(v) Upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site.
d. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software.
e. RUS encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadline. Difficulties encountered by applicants filing through Grants.gov will not justify filing deadline extensions.
f. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.
1. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 25, 2011 to be eligible for FY 2011 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2011 grant funding.
2. Electronic grant applications must be received by July 25, 2011 to be eligible for FY 2011 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2011 grant funding.
1. Grant applications are scored competitively and subject to the criteria listed below.
2. Grant application scoring criteria are detailed in 7 CFR 1740.8. There are 100 points available, broken down as follows:
a. The Rurality of the Project (up to 50 points);
b. The Economic Need of the Project's Service Area (up to 25 points); and
c. The Critical Need for the project, and of the applicant, including the benefits derived from the proposed service (up to 25 points).
1. All applications for grants must be delivered to RUS at the address and by the date specified in this notice to be eligible for funding. RUS will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this part. RUS may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification.
2. Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned and will not be considered for FY 2011 funding.
3. Applications conforming with this part will be evaluated competitively by a panel of RUS employees selected by the Administrator of RUS, and will be awarded points as described in the scoring criteria in 7 CFR 1740.8. Applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended.
4. Regardless of the score an application receives, if the RUS determines that the Project is technically or financially infeasible, the Agency will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned and will not be considered for FY 2011 funding.
1. The applicant's estimated scores in Rurality and Economic Need will be checked and, if necessary, corrected by RUS.
2. The Critical Need score will be determined by RUS based on information presented in the application. The critical need score is a subjective score based on the reviewer's assessment of the supporting arguments made in the application. The score aims to assess how the specific digital transition purpose fits with the unique need of the television station as it moves all of its equipment through the digital transition. This score is intended to capture from the rural public's standpoint the necessity and usefulness of the proposed project.
This scoring category will also recognize that at a specific time, some transition purposes are perceived to be more essential than others and that, over time, that perception changes. For example, during the transition from analog to digital transmitters, which concluded on June 12, 2009, a first time transition of a primary transmitter was
The Agency generally notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by faxing an award letter. The Agency follows the award letter with a grant agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. A copy of the standard agreement is posted on the RUS Web site at
The items listed in the program regulation at 7 CFR 1740.9(j) implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements.
1. All recipients of Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program financial assistance must provide semiannual performance activity reports to RUS until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last semiannual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project.
2. Recipient and Subrecipient Reporting.
The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR part 170, § 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:
a. First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more in non-Recovery Act funds (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to
b. The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to
c. The Total Compensation of the Subrecipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Subrecipient (if the Subrecipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub-award was made.
3. Systems Necessary To Meet Reporting Requirements.
The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparence Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR part 170, § 170.110(b).
A.
B.
C.
D.
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 177 to expand the service area under the alternative site framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA), U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS) is organizing a Clean Technologies Trade Mission to India on November 7-11, 2011 to be led by Under Secretary for International Trade Francisco Sánchez. India, one of the world's fastest growing economies, presents lucrative opportunities for U.S. companies due to a critical need for significant investments in clean energy and environmental technologies. The trade mission will target a broad range of clean technologies including wind, hydro, waste-to-energy, solar power generation and clean coal; energy efficiency including smart grids; and environmental technologies such as water and waste water treatment and solid waste management. This mission will contribute to the National Export Initiative (NEI) and the Growth in Emerging Metropolitan Sectors (GEMS) program and delivers on the CS mission of assisting U.S. businesses in exporting, entering new markets, and enhancing U.S. exports in the clean technology sector in India's emerging regions.
The mission will help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to India. The mission will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; meeting with national and regional government officials; and networking events. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling to India on their own, will enhance the companies' ability to secure meetings in India. Additionally, in Hyderabad, the U.S.-based solar companies will attend SOLARCON India 2011, a DOC-certified trade show where Commercial Service India is organizing a U.S. pavilion, which will allow delegates to tap into a wealth of local contacts for matchmaking and participate in industry seminars that include public speaking opportunities. In Hyderabad, there will be a separate track of matchmaking and other activities for non-solar companies who would not be participating in SOLARCON.
India, one of the world's fastest growing economies, presents lucrative opportunities for U.S. companies that offer products and services in the clean technologies industries. India is seeking to diversify and grow its energy sources and reduce carbon emissions in the context of sustained economic expansion. With the rapid growth of the Indian economy, the demand for clean technologies in the country is rising exponentially, and the development of renewable energy resources and deployment of environment technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a high priority for the Government of India (GOI).
Demand for power in India has been continuously increasing due to rapid development and industrialization. The demand/availability gap remains the major concern for the Indian energy sector, threatening to slow the growth of the Indian economy. To keep its economic growth at its current pace, India needs to add 150 GW of power capacity at an investment of $200 billion over the next five years. The Government of India (GOI) wants to tackle the existing shortfall in the energy supply increasingly through the generation of renewable energies. India today stands among the top four countries in the world in terms of renewable energy capacity and it offers some attractive incentives in this area.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• The $1.2 billion Indian water and waste water treatment market is
• The U.S. accounts for over 40% of the total Indian imports into this sector.
• The current market for industrial and waste water treatment is estimated at $640 million and drinking water purification at $425 million. Both sectors are expected to witness tremendous growth in the near and medium-term.
• The $280 million bottled water market is expected to reach $600 million by 2012.
• The $40 million market for packaged waste water treatment plants is expected to reach $60 million by 2013.
New Delhi is the seat of the national government and the principal end-user of clean-energy technologies in India. From New Delhi, the national government issues directives on nationwide deployment of clean and renewable energy. New Delhi is also one of India's largest metropolitan areas and is in need of increased power generation and improved environmental quality. The city's size makes it particularly attractive market for large investments in clean energy generated by solid and liquid wastes.
Hyderabad is a key hub for clean technologies in India. It is the home for the prestigious Confederation of Indian Industry's (CII) green business center and many leading Indian energy firms, many of whom have partnered with American companies. One of India's most significant solar energy trade shows—SOLARCON will take place in Hyderabad in November 2011. Renewable energy, waste to energy, and alternative fuels are all pro-actively supported by the local government through a variety of policy measures and projects. Hyderabad is centrally located and one of India's fastest growing metropolitan areas.
Ahmedabad is the 7th largest city in India, and is located in Gujarat which is one of the leading industrialized states in India. Ahmedabad is the second largest industrial center in western India after Mumbai and is a base for the chemical, textile, pharmaceutical and food processing industries. The region offers strong business prospects to U.S. companies in the clean energy sector, particularly in solar sector as the government of the state has recently announced a progressive policy with respect to industrial energy efficiency. Ahmedabad has been identified by CS India as one of the key second tier cities in India under the `Growth in Emerging Metropolitan Sectors' (GEMS) program which is aimed at building commercial ties between the U.S. and India's emerging cities and states.
The goal of the Clean Technologies Trade Mission to India is to promote the export of U.S. goods and services by: (1) Introducing U.S. companies to industry representatives and potential clients and partners; and (2) introducing U.S. companies to Indian government officials in India to learn about policy initiatives that will impact the implementation of energy generation, energy conservation and environmental projects.
In New Delhi, the U.S. mission members will participate in an Embassy briefing, meet with GOI officials and take part in one-on-one business appointments with private-sector organizations. In addition, they will enjoy a networking event with industry leaders and multipliers. In Hyderabad, all of the delegates will attend a networking reception and have customized one-on-one business appointments. In addition, solar companies will participate in SOLARCON 2011 where they can showcase their technologies and meet with potential partners and attend the trade show reception. In Ahmedabad, mission delegates will participate in one-on-one business appointments and networking activities.
Matchmaking efforts will involve multipliers such as the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), and the American Chamber of Commerce in India. U.S. participants will be counseled before and after the mission by CS India staff and other federal agencies actively involved in clean technology trade promotion activities in India.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the DOC. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 20 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies already doing business with India as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter to the Indian market for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the DOC in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be $5,000 for large firms and $4,500 for a small- or medium-sized enterprise (SME) or small organization, which will
Participants in the SOLARCON trade show in Hyderabad will pay show-related expenses directly to the show organizer.
Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
• Suitability of the company's products or services to the market
• Applicant's potential for business in India and in the region, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission
Diversity of company size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Anne Novak, U.S. Commercial Service, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 262-7764, E-mail:
Preetha Nair, U.S. Commercial Service, New Delhi, India, Tel: +91-11-23472347, E-mail:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
June 10, 2011.
Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-2769.
On March 4, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China covering the period January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009.
In antidumping duty administrative reviews, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the 120-day period to 180 days after publication of the preliminary results (or 300 days if the Department has not extended the time limit for the preliminary results).
The Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 120-day time period because it requires additional time to consider the comments it received on May 25, 2011 concerning Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completing the final results of the instant administrative review until July 11, 2011.
This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Eric Greynolds or Jolanta Lawska, 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) 482-6071 and (202) 482-8362, respectively.
On November 29, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245 day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 days.
We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245 day period is not practicable for the following reasons. This review requires the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to the company's sales practices, manufacturing costs, and corporate relationships. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than October 31, 2011, the first business day following 120 days from the current deadline.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 2, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Canada. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States: Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. (JBL Canada). The review covers the period November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the manufacturer/exporter is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-4007 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.
On February 2, 2011, the Department published in the
On March 4, 2011, both parties requested that a public hearing be held in this proceeding. On March 18, and 21, 2011, the petitioners and JBL Canada, respectively, withdrew their hearing requests.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The scope of this order includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend. The scope of this order also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The scope of this order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the product. The scope of this order includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium
The period of review (POR) is November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, and subsequent to the imposition of the antidumping duty order, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, entries of subject merchandise for the period May 20, 2009, through May 28, 2009. Accordingly, this administrative review does not include the period May 20, 2009, through May 28, 2009.
As discussed in the
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo), which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations for JBL Canada. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
As a result of our review, we determined that the following weighted-average margin percentage applies for the period November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010, as follows:
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the respondent subject to this review directly to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
Because the respondent did not report entered value for all sales to each importer or customer, we calculated importer- or customer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Request for comments.
In antidumping duty (“AD”) administrative reviews involving non-market economy countries (“NME”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) currently instructs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate entries from non-reviewed exporters at the cash-deposit rate required at the time the subject merchandise entered into the United States, consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(i). The Department is aware of instances where merchandise from a non-reviewed exporter enters the United States at the cash-deposit rate of an exporter subject to review but where the basis for that cash deposit is not consistent with information subsequently reported to the Department during an administrative review. Accordingly, to ensure that entries are liquidated at appropriate rates and in accordance with the information reported to the Department during an administrative review, the Department is proposing to refine its practice with respect to the rate at which it instructs CBP to liquidate certain entries from non-reviewed exporters. Specifically, the Department proposes to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. Through this notice, the Department invites the public to comment on the proposed refinement to its practice.
Comments must be submitted to the Department by 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Julia Hancock, Special Assistant, China/NME Unit, Office of Antidumping and Countervailing Operations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at 202-482-1394.
In AD proceedings, the Department establishes a cash-deposit rate for each company subject to the investigation or review. In market economy (“ME”) proceedings, the Department establishes an “all-others” rate that applies to exporters that have not been assigned a company-specific rate.
In an ME proceeding, importers enter subject merchandise into the United States at either a company-specific cash-deposit rate or at the all-others rate in ME proceedings. In an NME proceeding, importers enter subject merchandise at a company-specific cash-deposit rate, a separate rate, or the NME-wide rate. Entries of subject merchandise are subject to cash-deposit requirements and are suspended from liquidation until the Department instructs CBP to liquidate the entries.
Sometimes an importer identifies its entry as merchandise from a particular firm, but the sales underlying the entry from the firm are not reported to and/or reviewed by the Department during the administrative review of that firm. Nevertheless, such entries remain suspended during the administrative review because they were identified as merchandise from a firm under review. During its proceeding, the Department determines the merchandise to which its final results of administrative review apply. There may be suspended entries to which the Department's final review results do not apply.
In the past, in both ME and NME cases, the Department instructed CBP to assess AD duties on entries not examined and/or not otherwise covered by the final results of review for a firm that was subject to the review at the rate at which the merchandise entered the United States,
Because discussions had not fully explored the Department's revised practice in the NME context, to date, the Department has not applied the
Additionally, as described in the
For the above reasons, the Department proposes revising its liquidation instructions in NME cases to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise from a non-reviewed exporter at the NME-wide rate. The Department proposes to apply this refinement to merchandise produced in the NME country and exported to the United States either directly from the NME country or from a third-country reseller. Regardless of the location of the non-reviewed exporter or reseller, when a party does not file a separate-rate application, the Department lacks necessary information on the record to determine whether it is entitled to a separate rate. By revising the NME liquidation instructions in a manner similar to that described in the
This refinement will increase the need for interested parties (including exporters and importers of merchandise produced in NME countries) to participate in the Department's proceedings. For example, exporters and importers of subject merchandise will need to determine whether to request an administrative review and file a separate-rate application. Through an administrative review, a party can seek a separate cash-deposit rate for its merchandise.
The Department welcomes written comments on this proposed refinement of its practice.
As specified above, to be assured of consideration, comments must be received no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice in the
The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for inspection at Import Administration's Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building) and on the Department's Web site at
Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866, e-mail address:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (“citric acid”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period November 20, 2008, through April 30, 2010. The Department has preliminarily determined that during the period of review (“POR”) respondents in this proceeding have made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
Krisha Hill or Lilit Asvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-6412, respectively.
On May 29, 2009, the Department published in the
On November 17, 2010, Petitioners,
On January 25, 2011, the Department published a notice in the
The POR is November 20, 2008, through April 30, 2010.
The scope of this order includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend. The scope of this order also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The scope of this order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least 2%, by weight, of the product. The scope of this order includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is permitted to extend this time if it is reasonable to do so.
On September 24, 2010, Nutralliance, Inc., a U.S. importer of subject merchandise produced and exported by Laiwu Taihe, timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of Laiwu Taihe's exports to the United States. On October 15, 2010, Petitioners timely withdrew their review requests for BBCA, Worldbest, and Pioneers. Because no other parties requested a review of Laiwu Taihe's, BBCA's, Worldbest's or Pioneers' exports to the United States, the Department hereby rescinds the administrative review of citric acid with respect to these entities in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country.
When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”), valued in a surrogate market-economy (“ME”) country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value FOPs using “to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: (A) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.”
With respect to the Department's selection of surrogate country, both Petitioners and RZBC submitted comments arguing that Indonesia is the most appropriate surrogate country from which to derive surrogate factor values for the PRC because Indonesia: (a) Has a per capita gross national income (“GNI”) which is economically comparable to that of the PRC, (b) is also a significant producer of citric acid, and (c) provides reliable data to value respondents' factors of production.
In the instant review, the Department has identified India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and Peru as countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.
The Department has determined that it is appropriate to use Indonesia as a surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, based on the following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development to the PRC; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and (3) the Department has reliable data from Indonesia that it can use to value the FOPs.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate.
In order to demonstrate separate-rate status eligibility, the Department normally requires entities, for whom a review was requested, and who were assigned a separate rate in a previous segment of this proceeding, to submit a separate-rate certification stating that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.
The Department considers the following
The evidence provided by RZBC and Yixing Union supports a preliminary finding of
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to
The Department has determined that an analysis of
The evidence placed on the record of this review by RZBC and Yixing Union demonstrates an absence of
To determine whether RZBC's and Yixing Union's sales of subject merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the NV to individual export price (“EP”) transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is “the price at which subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States,” as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. For each respondent, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for sales in which constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, marine insurance, domestic and market-economy brokerage and handling, and international freight. We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Indonesia. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; and (3) representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, labor, packing and by-products.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate surrogate value (“SV”) to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department normally will value the factor using the actual price paid for the input.
For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used data from the Indonesian and Thai import Statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) and other publicly available Indian and Indonesian sources in order to calculate SVs for RZBC's and Yixing Union's FOPs (
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site:
We valued the surrogate value for inland water freight using price data for barge freight reported in a March 19,
On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit in
For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the Department is valuing labor using a simple-average, industry-specific wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the International Labor Organization (“ILO”). To achieve an industry-specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $2.01 for these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 24 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (“Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products”) to be the best available wage rate surrogate value on the record because it is specific and derived from industries that produce merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-specific wage rate data or earnings data available from the following countries found to be economically comparable to the PRC and which are significant producers of comparable merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate,
We were unable to segregate and, therefore, were unable to exclude energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we have disregarded the respondents' energy inputs (electricity and steam for both RZBC and Yixing Union) in the calculation of normal value for purposes of the final determination, in order to avoid double-counting energy costs that have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial ratios.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year ending December 2009 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a producer of comparable merchandise from Indonesia. The Department may consider other publicly available financial statements for the final results, as appropriate.
RZBC and Yixing Union reported that they have recovered by-products in their production of subject merchandise and successfully demonstrated that all of them have commercial value; therefore, we have granted a by-product offset for the quantities of each respondent's reported by-products, valued using Indonesian GTA data.
Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
The weighted-average dumping margins for the individually reviewed exporters are as follows:
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For Laiwu Taihe and BBCA, which had previously established eligibility for a separate rate, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review.
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For RZBC and Yixing Union the cash deposit rate will be their respective rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Jennifer Lewis, Ph.D., Tropical Dolphin Research Foundation, Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on bottlenose dolphins (
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by e-mail to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Kristy Beard, (301) 713-2289.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a five-year permit to conduct photo-identification surveys and biopsy sampling. Research would occur in Whitewater Bay, Shark River, Ponce de Leon Bay and Florida Bay, which are found in Everglades National Park (ENP). Up to 3,020 bottlenose dolphins could be taken by level B harassment each year during photo-identification surveys. Additionally, up to 38 bottlenose dolphins from each location could be taken by level A harassment annually, to acquire 30 successful biopsy samples from each location over the life of the permit. Research would stop when the desired number of samples has been obtained. The purposes of the proposed research are to: (1) Examine spatiotemporal variation in trophic interactions (diets) of the dolphins, (2) elucidate patterns of transmission of a unique foraging behavior, mud ring feeding, and (3) compare trophic interactions and genetics of dolphins in ENP with existing samples from the Lower Florida Keys.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; response to comments.
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). The 2010 reports are final and available to the public.
Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address:
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN 15700, Seattle, WA 98115.
Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.
Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 141,
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in each of the three regions.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2010, and the revised reports were made available for public review and comment (75 FR 46912, August 4, 2010). The MMPA also specifies that the comment period on draft SARs must be 90 days. NMFS received comments on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. The final reports for 2010 are available (see
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2010 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), five non-governmental organizations (National Resources Defense Council, Humane Society of the United States, Cascadia Research Collective, California Gray Whale Coalition, and Hawaii Longline Association), and one individual. Most letters contained multiple comments.
Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports but were not included in the summary of comments and responses below. Other comments recommended initiation or repetition of large data collection efforts, such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or other mortality estimates. Comments on actions not related to the SARs (
In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered for, or incorporated into, future revisions of the SAR rather than being incorporated into the final 2010 SARs. The delay is due to the schedule of the review of the reports by the regional SRGs. NMFS provides preliminary copies of updated SARs to SRGs prior to release for public review and comment. If a comment on the draft SAR suggests a substantive change to the SAR, NMFS may discuss the comment and prospective change with the SRG at its next meeting.
NMFS has taken several steps to address shortcomings in protected species observer coverage, including observer coverage in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery and a doubling of observed sea days in the American Samoa longline fishery in FY2010. In 2011, NMFS implemented observer coverage in the menhaden purse seine fishery in the Gulf of Mexico to collect catch data and record bycatch of sea turtles and marine mammals that interact with the fishery. NMFS is preparing to observe the Southeast Alaska drift gillnet fishery, beginning in 2012.
NMFS continues to work collaboratively with state, federal, and industry partners to implement observer programs and develop alternative funding options. Currently three observer programs receive industry funding. Recently, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council approved provisions to restructure the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries observer program, including a 1.25% ex-vessel landings fee to pay for observer coverage. NMFS continues to address gaps in coverage and works to improve the estimates of protected species bycatch by increasing observer coverage as funds become available.
A description of the marine mammal programs criteria for observer coverage (expressed in terms of bias and precision of mortality estimates) is available in a NOAA Technical Memorandum describing the resources needed to better understand the status of protected species. This report is available on the Internet at the following address:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 25 Review Workshop for South Atlantic black sea bass (
The SEDAR 25 Review of the South Atlantic stock of black sea bass and golden tilefish will consist of one workshop, held September 20-22, 2011. This is the twenty-fifth SEDAR.
The SEDAR 25 Review Workshop will take place September 20-22, 2011. See
The SEDAR 25 Review Workshop will be held at the Crowne Plaza, 4831 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418;
Kari Fenske, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405;
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) Data Workshop, (2) Stock Assessment Workshop and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Stock Assessment Workshop is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Consensus Summary documenting Panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Panelists for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. SEDAR participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
September 20, 2011: 9 a.m.-8 p.m.; September 21, 2011: 8 a.m.-8 p.m.; September 22, 2011: 8 a.m.-1 p.m.
The Review Workshop is an independent peer review of the assessment developed during the Data and Assessment Workshops. Workshop Panelists will review the assessment and document their comments and recommendations in a Consensus Summary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 9, 2011.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Matthew Lee, Office of Finance, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-6343; or by e-mail to
Under 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) charges fees for processing and other services related to patents, trademarks, and information products. Customers may submit payments to the USPTO by several methods, including credit card, deposit account, electronic funds transfer (EFT), and paper check transactions. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113 are implemented in 37 CFR 1.16-1.28, 2.6-2.7, and 2.206-2.209.
This information collection includes the Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038), which provides the public with a convenient way to submit a credit card payment for fees related to a patent, trademark, or information product. Customers may also submit credit card payments via the Electronic Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2231) when using online systems through the USPTO Web site for paying fees related to patents, trademarks, or information products. The USPTO will not include credit card information submitted using the provided credit card payment forms among the patent or trademark records open to public inspection.
Customers may establish a deposit account for making fee payments by completing a Deposit Account Application Form (PTO-2232) and sending the required information, initial deposit, and service fee to the USPTO. Deposit accounts eliminate the need to submit a check, credit card information, or other form of payment for each transaction with the USPTO. Additionally, in the event that a fee amount due is miscalculated, customers may authorize the USPTO to charge any remaining balance to the deposit account and therefore avoid the potential consequences of underpayment. As customers use their deposit accounts to make payments, they may deposit funds to replenish their accounts by mailing a check to the USPTO or making a deposit online via EFT using the Electronic Deposit Account Replenishment Form (PTO-2233) available at the USPTO Web site. Replenishments may not be made by credit card. Customers may close their deposit accounts by submitting a written request or by using the Deposit Account Closure Request Form (PTO-2234).
In addition to credit cards and deposit accounts, customers may also use EFT to make online fee payments to the USPTO. Customers must first establish a user profile with their banking information by submitting the EFT User Profile Form (PTO-2236) through the USPTO Web site. Once their profile is created, customers may use their User ID and password to perform EFT transactions.
Under 37 CFR 1.26 and 2.209, the USPTO may refund fees paid by mistake or in excess of the required amount. In general, refunds of amounts larger than $25 are returned to the customer automatically using the same method as the original payment. For refund amounts of $25 or less, customers must submit a written request to the Refund Branch of the USPTO Office of Finance.
In order to access and manage their financial activity records online, customers may create a Financial Profile through the USPTO Web site. Customers create a profile by registering a username and password, providing contact information, and specifying the types of notifications and alerts they would like to receive. After establishing a Financial Profile, customers may then add the relevant account information to the profile in order to track their credit card, deposit account, and EFT transactions with the USPTO.
By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.
There are service fees for setting up a deposit account at the USPTO, for not maintaining the minimum balance required for the deposit account, and for returned payments. The service charge to establish a deposit account is $10, and the USPTO estimates that it processes 264 Deposit Account Application Forms annually, for a total of $2,640 per year. There is also a $25 service charge for deposit accounts that are below the minimum balance ($1,000 minimum balance for an unrestricted deposit account or $300 minimum balance for a restricted deposit account) at the end of the month. The USPTO estimates that it assesses 4,273 of these low balance charges annually, for a total of $106,825 per year. There is a $50 service charge for processing a payment refused (including a check returned “unpaid”) or charged back by a financial institution. The USPTO estimates that it assesses 228 of these returned payment charges annually, for a total of $11,400 per year. The total estimated service fees for this collection are $120,865 per year.
Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the Credit Card Payment Form and other paper forms or requests to the USPTO by mail. Customers generally send the Credit Card Payment Form to the USPTO along with other documents related to the fee or service being paid for by credit card, but some customers may submit just the Credit Card Payment Form without additional supporting documents. The USPTO estimates that roughly 5 percent of the 151,144 paper Credit Card Payment Forms submitted annually may be mailed in by themselves, or approximately 7,557 per year. The USPTO estimates that it will receive an additional 40,412 submissions per year that may be mailed, including Deposit Account Application Forms, Deposit Account Replenishments, Deposit Account Closure Requests, and Refund Requests, for a total of 47,969 mailed submissions per year. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 44 cents, for a total postage cost of approximately $21,106 per year.
The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of service fees and postage costs is estimated to be $141,971 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Effective Date: 7/11/2011.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 3/18/2011 (76 FR 14943), 4/1/2011 (76 FR 18188-18189), and 4/15/2011 (76 FR 21336-21337), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following notice of scheduled meetings is published pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The Commission has scheduled a meeting for the following date: June 14, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1000).
Open.
The Commission has scheduled this meeting for consideration of effective dates of Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission may also consider and vote on dates and times for future meetings. Agendas for each scheduled meeting will be made available to the public and posted on the Commission's Web site at
David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5071.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the annual meeting of the Board of Visitors (BoV) for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The Board's charter was renewed on March 18, 2010 in compliance with the requirements set forth in Title 10 U.S.C. 2166.
Tuesday-Wednesday, September 27-28, 2011.
WHINSEC Board of Visitors Secretariat at (703) 614-8721.
The meeting is open to the public. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), members of the public or interested groups may submit written statements to the advisory committee for consideration by the committee members. Written statements should be no longer than two type-written pages and sent via fax to (703) 614-8920 by 5 p.m. E.ST. on Monday, September 19th, 2011, for consideration at this meeting.
In addition, public comments by individuals and organizations may be made from 9:30 to 9:45 a.m. during the meeting on 27 September. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Anyone desiring to make an oral statement must register by sending a fax to (703) 614-8920 with his/her name, phone number, email address, and the full text of his/her comments (no longer than two typewritten pages) by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on Monday, September 19th, 2011. The first five requestors will be notified by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on Friday, September 23rd, 2011, of their time to address the Board during the public comment forum. All other comments will be retained for the record. Public seating is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN), with the cooperation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/LEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the continued withdrawal of approximately 1.1 million acres of public land in Kern, Inyo, and San Bernardino counties, California. This public land withdrawal comprises the current North and South ranges at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake (NAWSCL). The proposed land withdrawal extension will allow the DoN to continue defense-related research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) and training missions at NAWSCL, in addition to other land uses.
The California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-433, part of the California Desert Protection Act) withdrew and reserved the lands known then as the China Lake Naval Weapons Center (subsequently renamed NAWSCL) for defense-related purposes for a period of 20 years (until October 14, 2014). The Act provides that the DoN may seek extension of the withdrawal of such lands. As a part of the withdrawal process, the Secretary of the Navy is required to publish a draft EIS addressing the effects of continued withdrawal and hold public hearings in order to receive public comments on the proposal by October 12, 2012. The NAWSCL EIS/LEIS will examine current and proposed land uses in support of the DoN's military mission. The EIS/LEIS will specifically focus on those military land uses granted to the DoN under Public Law 103-433 that include: (1) Use as an RDT&E laboratory; (2) use as a range for air warfare weapons and weapons systems; (3) use as a high hazard training area for aerial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare and countermeasures, and tactical maneuvering and air support; (4) geothermal leasing and development, and related power production activities; and, (5) other defense-related purposes. The environmental analysis in the EIS/LEIS will be incorporated in an update to the May 2005 NAWSCL Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan (CLUMP). The CLUMP facilitates NAWSCL in planning for and managing land use and environmental resources on the withdrawn public lands in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701). The updated CLUMP will include an examination of both military land uses authorized under Public Law 103-433 and those mission-compatible non-military land uses authorized in the 2005 CLUMP.
1. Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Historic USO Building, 230 West Ridgecrest Boulevard, Ridgecrest, California 93555;
2. Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Statham Hall, 138 Jackson Street, Lone Pine, California 93545; and
3. Thursday, July 21, 2011, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Trona Community Senior Center, 13187 Market Street, Trona, California 93562.
Additional information concerning meeting times and locations is available on the NAWSCL EIS/LEIS Web site at
Each of the public scoping meetings will consist of an informal, open house session with information stations staffed
NAWSCL Land Withdrawal EIS/LEIS Project Manager (Attn: Ms. Jo Ellen Anderson), NAVFAC Southwest, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92132-5178, telephone number: 619-532-2633.
The NAWSCL North and South ranges are located in the western Mojave Desert, approximately 150 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. These ranges encompass approximately 1.1 million acres and are located in portions of Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties. The DoN has been operating the NAWSCL land ranges for nearly 70 years.
The California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 authorized the withdrawal of the public lands associated with the NAWSCL ranges for a period of 20 years (until October 14, 2014). The military land uses specifically allowed under the Act included: (1) Use as an RDT&E laboratory; (2) use as a range for air warfare weapons and weapons systems; (3) use as a high hazard training area for aerial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare and countermeasures, and tactical maneuvering and air support; (4) use for geothermal leasing and development, and related power production activities; and, (5) use for other defense-related purposes.
In May 2005, pursuant to the requirements of Public Law 103-433 and FLPMA, NAWSCL completed and endorsed a comprehensive land use management plan for the withdrawn public lands. This land use management plan is referred to as the NAWSCL CLUMP. In addition to the military land uses granted to the DoN in Public Law 103-433, the 2005 CLUMP authorized the following non-military, but mission-compatible land uses, on the ranges: (1) Native American access; (2) education and research projects; (3) limited recreation; and (4) limited commercial uses, including geothermal leasing and development, and related power production activities.
The military land uses authorized by Public Law 103-433 and the non-military uses authorized by the 2005 CLUMP are consistent with the mission of NAWSCL, which is to conduct weapons RDT&E for weapon systems associated with air warfare, aircraft weapons integration, missiles and missile subsystems, and assigned airborne electronic warfare systems and related training within a safe, secure, and operationally diverse land range test environment. Combat relevant test and evaluation, as well as training for operational compatibility, is the primary means to ensure readiness and prepare our military to fight and win in combat. To be effective in its mission, the NAWSCL ranges must provide sufficient land and airspace to conduct test and evaluation at distances and scenarios with fidelity to combat uses. Access to a variety of conditions (e.g., simulated threats, operational space, topographic relief, and safety constraints) and scheduling availability are important characteristics that must be preserved and enhanced. The DoN's continuing need for RDT&E and training range capability balances maximum use of the range with maintaining stewardship responsibilities for the lands and their resources.
In accordance with the Engle Act of 1958 (Pub. L. 85-337) and FLPMA, the DoN is required to file an application with BLM requesting the Secretary of the Interior process a proposed legislative withdrawal and reservation of public land to continue military RDT&E and training activities on the NAWSCL ranges. The proposed action would continue the existing withdrawal of 1.1 million acres of public land for military use. The public land would be withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including surface entry, mining, mineral leasing, and the Materials Act of 1947.
1. Alternative 1 (Withdrawal with Increased Tempo) consists of: (1) Congressional renewal of the current land withdrawal of approximately 1.1 million acres of public land for continued military use; (2) revision to and implementation of the NAWSCL CLUMP to reflect current and future land uses, both military and non-military; and (3) an increase of up to 25% in the tempo of military RDT&E, training activities (including ground and air training by DoN special operations forces and other Services), and expansion of unmanned aerial and surface systems, as well as the expansion of existing and the introduction of evolving directed energy weapons development at NAWSCL.
2. Alternative 2 (Withdrawal with Baseline Tempo) consists of: (1) Renewing (through Congressional action) the land withdrawal; (2) revising and implementing the NAWSCL CLUMP; and, (3) maintaining current levels of RDT&E and training use (type, tempo, location).
3. Alternative 3 (No Action Alternative) would allow the public land withdrawal to expire, with administrative control of the withdrawn land returning to the BLM. Withdrawn lands would comprise 92% of all NAWSCL lands. Limited RDT&E and training activities at NAWSCL would continue on 8% of remaining NAWSCL fee-owned/leased land and within managed airspace.
Environmental Issues and Resources To Be Examined: Environmental issues that will be addressed in the EIS/LEIS include, but are not limited to, the following: Air quality; biological resources (including threatened and endangered species); cultural resources; geology and soils; hazardous materials and hazardous waste management; health and safety; noise; socioeconomics (including environmental justice); transportation; and water resources. Relevant and reasonable measures that would avoid or mitigate environmental effects will also be analyzed. Additionally, the DoN will undertake any consultations required by the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and any other applicable law or regulation.
Submitting Comments: The DoN encourages interested persons to submit comments concerning the proposed extension of the public land withdrawal, the alternatives proposed for study, and environmental impacts to be analyzed. Federal, state, and local agencies, Native Americans and Federally Recognized Tribes, and interested persons are encouraged to provide oral and/or written comments to the DoN to identify specific environmental issues or topics of
Written comments on the scope of the EIS/LEIS should be postmarked no later than September 8, 2011. Comments may be mailed to NAWSCL Land Withdrawal EIS/LEIS Project Manager (Attn: Ms. Jo Ellen Anderson), NAVFAC Southwest, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92132-5178. Comments may also be submitted via the EIS/LEIS Web site located at
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
The following patent is available for licensing: U.S. Patent application Serial Number 12/550,684: Fire Fighting System, filed on August 31, 2009.
Requests for copies of the invention cited should be directed to Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Code 498400D, 1900 N. Knox Road Stop 6312, China Lake, CA 93555-6106 and must include the Navy Case number.
Michael D. Seltzer, Ph.D., Head, Technology Transfer Office, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Code 498400D, 1900 N. Knox Road Stop 6312, China Lake, CA 93555-6106, telephone 760-939-1074, FAX 760-939-1210, E-mail:
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities.
Notice of an open meeting via conference call.
The notice sets forth the schedule and agenda of the meeting of the Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities. The notice also describes the functions of the Commission. Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.
June 24, 2011.
The Commission will meet via conference call on June 24, 2011. Members of the public have the option of participating in the open meeting remotely. Remote access will be provided via an Internet webinar service utilizing VoiP (Voice Over Internet Protocol). The login address for members of the public is
Elizabeth Shook, Program Specialist, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, United States Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202;
The Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities (the Commission) is established under Section 772 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, Public Law 110-315, dated August 14, 2008. The Commission is established to (a) Conduct a comprehensive study, which will—(I) Assess the barriers and systemic issues that may affect, and technical solutions available that may improve, the timely delivery and quality of accessible instructional materials for postsecondary students with print disabilities, as well as the effective use of such materials by faculty and staff; and (II) make recommendations related to the development of a comprehensive approach to improve the opportunities for postsecondary students with print disabilities to access instructional materials in specialized formats in a time frame comparable to the availability of instructional materials for postsecondary nondisabled students.
In making recommendations for the study, the Commission shall consider—(I) How students with print disabilities may obtain instructional materials in accessible formats within a time frame comparable to the availability of instructional materials for nondisabled students; and to the maximum extent practicable, at costs comparable to the costs of such materials for nondisabled students; (II) the feasibility and technical parameters of establishing standardized electronic file formats, such as the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard as defined in Section 674(e)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to be provided by publishers of instructional materials to producers of materials in specialized formats, institutions of higher education, and eligible students; (III) the feasibility of establishing a national clearinghouse, repository, or file-sharing network for electronic files in specialized formats and files used in producing instructional materials in specialized formats, and a list of possible entities qualified to administer such clearinghouse, repository, or network; (IV) the feasibility of establishing market-based solutions involving collaborations among publishers of instructional materials, producers of materials in specialized formats, and institutions of higher education; (V) solutions utilizing universal design; and (VI) solutions for low-incidence, high-cost requests for instructional materials in specialized formats.
During the meeting, the Commission will discuss the first draft of the final report. In particular, the Commission will discuss its proposed recommendations and identify issues for further discussion at the next in-person meeting on July 11-12, 2011 in Seattle, Washington.
Given the limited meeting time, the Commission does not anticipate that there will be an opportunity for public comment during the teleconference meeting. Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments to the AIM Commission Web site at
Detailed minutes of the meeting, including summaries of the activities of the closed sessions and related matters that are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) will be available to the public. Records are kept of all Commission proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, United States Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202, Monday-Friday during the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to listen to the meeting (
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Notice of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the National Board for Education Sciences. The notice also describes the functions of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend the meeting.
June 29, 2011. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
80 F Street, NW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20208.
Monica Herk, Executive Director, National Board for Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Ave., NW., Room 602 I, Washington, DC, 20208;
The National Board for Education Sciences is authorized by Section 116 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA), 20 U.S.C. 9516. The Board advises the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) on, among other things, the establishment of activities to be supported by the Institute, on the funding for applications for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for research after the completion of peer review, and reviews and evaluates the work of the Institute.
At this time, the Board consists of ten of fifteen appointed members due to the expirations of the terms of former members. The Board shall meet and can carry out official business because the ESRA states that a majority of the voting members serving at the time of a meeting constitutes a quorum.
On June 29, 2011, starting at 8:30 a.m. the Board will approve the agenda and hear remarks from the chair, followed by the swearing in of new members. John Easton, IES Director, and the Commissioners of the national centers will give an overview of recent developments at IES. From 9:15 to 10:30 a.m. Board members will address the topic of “Linking NCES and State Data, and Other Initiatives to Create a More Comprehensive Portrait of U.S. Students and Schools.” Opening remarks by Dr. Jack Buckley, NCES Commissioner, will be followed by Board discussion. A break will take place from 10:30 to 10:45 a.m.
From 10:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., the Board will consider the topic, “The `Big Picture'.” Board members will engage in a roundtable discussion addressing the following questions: “Within the overall Board-approved IES research priorities, what are the most important and compelling research questions and topics to address?” and “Where are the gaps in knowledge the greatest and most serious?” The meeting will break for lunch from 12:15 to 1:15 p.m.
Following lunch the Board will turn to the topic, “Communications: What are effective ways to communicate key research findings?” from 1:15 to 2:45 p.m. After opening remarks by IES Director John Easton and Dr. John W. Wallace, formerly with MDRC, the Board will discuss the issue, paying particular attention to two potential audiences for the research findings: (1) Federal, state, and local education policy-makers, and (2) educational practitioners at the school or classroom level.
An afternoon break from 2:45 to 3 p.m. will precede a presentation and discussion of “Low-Cost Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) Using Existing Data (
At 4:30 p.m. there will be closing remarks and a consideration of next steps from the IES Director and NBES Chair, with adjournment scheduled for 5 p.m.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
There will not be an opportunity for public comment. However, members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments related to NBES to Monica Herk (see contact information above. A final agenda will be available from Monica Herk (see contact
Records are kept of all Committee proceedings and are available for public inspection at 555 New Jersey Ave., NW., Room 602 K, Washington, DC 20208, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-866-512-1800; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-0000.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Department of Energy, DOE.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee. SEAB was reestablished pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Monday, June 13, 2011; 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
Washington & Jefferson College, 60 South Lincoln Street, Washington, Philadelphia 15301.
Renee Stone, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; e-mail to:
Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Renee Stone, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585, or by e-mail to:
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues and members' availability.
Department of Energy, DOE.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), Natural Gas Subcommittee. SEAB was reestablished pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011; 10 a.m.-12 p.m. 1:30 p.m.-4 p.m.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Renee Stone, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; e-mail to:
Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Renee Stone, U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585; or by e-mail to:
Department of Energy, DoE.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), Natural Gas Subcommittee. SEAB was reestablished pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011; 10 a.m.-12 p.m. 1:30 p.m.-4 p.m.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Renee Stone, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; e-mail to:
Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Renee Stone, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585; or by e-mail to:
On March 4, 2011, Lock Hydro Friends Fund I, filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at the City of Austin's Longhorn Dam located on the Lower Colorado River in Travis County, Texas. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The existing 506-foot-long, 36-foot-high Longhorn dam; (2) the existing reservoir with a surface area of 525.0 acres and a storage capacity of 6,000 acre-feet; (3) two prefabricated concrete walls attached to the downstream side of the dam which would support one power stack, also known as, a frame module; (4) the frame
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on May 19, 2011, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern) filed a prior notice request for authorization, in accordance with 18 CFR 157.205 and 157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations under the Natural Gas Act for the authority to construct, own and operate approximately 1.2 miles of new 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, abandon in place approximately 1.1 miles of existing 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, and remove approximately 100 feet of 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline in Will County, Illinois. Midwestern also seeks to install a new stopple fitting located adjacent to its existing REXALL meter station. Midwestern estimates the total cost of the proposed project to be $10,194,000, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this prior notice should be directed to Joseph Miller, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, 100 West 5th Street, ONEOK Plaza, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, or telephone (918) 588-7057, or by fax (918) 588-7890, or by e-mail
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to make its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies public. Historically, EPA met this mandate by publishing weekly notices of availability
Revision to FR Notice Published 06/03/2011: Correction to Contact Telephone Number.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Federal Election Commission.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Commission Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of establishment of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services and request for nominations.
The National Alzheimer's Project Act, Public Law 111-375 (42 U.S.C. 11225), requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) establish the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services. The Advisory Council is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The Secretary of HHS has determined that establishment of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services is desirable to provide advice and consultation to the Secretary on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people with the disease and their caregivers. The Secretary signed the charter establishing the Advisory Council on May 23, 2011. HHS is soliciting nominations for non-Federal members of the Advisory Council. Nominations should include the nominee's contact information (current mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number) and a current curriculum vitae or resume.
Submit nominations by e-mail or USPS mail before COB on June 30, 2011.
Nominations should be sent to Helen Lamont at
Helen Lamont (202) 690-7996,
The Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services shall meet quarterly to discuss programs that impact people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and their caregivers. The Advisory Council shall make recommendations about ways to reduce the financial impact of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and to improve the health outcomes of people with these conditions. The Advisory Council shall provide feedback on a National Plan for Alzheimer's disease. On an annual basis, the Advisory Council shall evaluate the implementation of the recommendations through an updated national plan.
The Advisory Council shall consist of at least 22 members. Ten members will be designees from Federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Administration on Aging, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Indian Health Service, Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Surgeon General.
The Advisory Council shall also consist of 12 non-federal members selected by the Secretary who are Alzheimer's patient advocates (2), Alzheimer's caregivers (2), health care providers (2), representatives of State health departments (2), researchers with Alzheimer's-related expertise in basic, translational, clinical, or drug development science (2), and voluntary health association representatives (2). The Secretary shall appoint one of the members to serve as the Chair. Members shall be invited to serve for overlapping 4 year terms, except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor has taken office. Members will serve as Special Government Employees.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from Grand Junction Operations Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On April 29, 2011, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Grand Junction Operations Office from March 23, 1943 through January 31, 1975, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC.
This designation became effective on May 29, 2011, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on May 29, 2011, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46,
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Notice.
This extension of time to respond to the previously published Request For Information (RFI) seeks to provide additional opportunities for potential stakeholders to identify and obtain relevant information regarding the possible development of a public-private partnership (PPP) designed to facilitate the identification of risks and strategies to assure safety of the U.S. supply of blood and blood components, tissues, cells, and organs. The original RFI was published in the
Responses are encouraged by the original June 9, 2011 deadline; however, if an extension is required it will be provided until June 30, 2011 (4 p.m. EDT). Please notify us if you intend to respond by the extended date (4 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2011 at the address listed below).
All responses should be emailed to
• Name of the institution or site.
• Respondent, title, and full contact information.
Dr. Jerry Holmberg, Senior Advisor for Blood Safety, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Tower Building, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20852.
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 76 FR 30174-30175, dated May 24, 2011) is amended to reflect the reorganization of Procurement and Grants Office.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in their entirety the title and the functional statement for the Materiel Management Activity (CAJH12), Office of the Director (CAJH1).
Following the title and functional statement for the Acquisition & Assistance Branch VIII (CAJHV), insert the following:
Logistics Management Branch (CAJHW). (1) Develops and implements CDC-wide policies, procedures, and criteria necessary to comply with federal and departmental regulations governing personal property, transportation, shipping, and fleet management; (2) determines, recommends, and implements procedural changes needed to maintain effective management of CDC property including but not limited to: inventory control; property records; receipt, delivery, tracking, shipping and return of CDC materiel; property reutilization and disposal; transportation of freight; and CDC's vehicle fleet; (3) provides audits, training and technical assistance to CDC Centers/Institute/Offices on property, transportation, shipping, and fleet management; (4) determines the requirement for and serves as the functional proponent for the design, test, and implementation of logistics management systems; (5) represents CDC on inter- and intra-departmental committees relevant to logistical functions; (6) serves as the CDC liaison to HHS and other federal agencies on logistical matters such as property, transportation and traffic management; and (7) establishes branch goals, objectives and priorities, and assures consistency and coordination with overall Procurement and Grants Office logistical goals and objectives.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
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), Department of Health and Human Services, 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 function; (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.
2.
3.
4.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on
OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
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,
1.
As previously described, we anticipate that a mail-based methodology could yield a response rate of approximately 60 percent. In order to achieve this response rate, we would recommend a 3 staged approach to data collection:
(1) Mailout of a covering letter, the paper survey questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope.
(2) Mailout of a post card that thanks respondents and reminds the non-respondents to please return their survey.
(3) Mailout of a follow-up covering letter, the paper survey questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope.
Through the pilot test, we will determine the response rate that can be achieved using this approach. If it is deemed necessary, additional mailout reminders can be added to the protocol, or a telephone non-response step can be added to the protocol.
Using the 3-step mail approach described above, we anticipate that data collection would occur over an 8 to 10 weeks. This is to say, if the first survey mailing were dropped on January 1, we would anticipate completing data collection at the end of February or early March. Data would then be cleaned, scores would be generated, and data would be delivered to CMS. Through the pilot test, we will determine the precise timing required to achieve an acceptable response rate, but we are aiming to complete sampling, data collection, and scoring within a 12-week period.
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. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development,
Following standard OMB requirements, OPRE will submit a change request to OMB individually for every data collection activity undertaken under this generic clearance. OPRE will provide OMB with a copy of the individual instrument or questionnaire, as well as other materials describing the project and specific survey pre-test.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
The Department specifically requests comments 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Following standard Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements, OPRE will submit a change request to OMB individually for every group of data collection activities undertaken under this generic clearance. OPRE will provide OMB with a copy of the individual instruments or questionnaires (if one is used), as well as other materials describing the project.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
The Department specifically requests comments 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 9, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA is requesting OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in 21 CFR 315.4, 315.5, and 315.6. These regulations require manufacturers of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals to submit information that demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of a new diagnostic radiopharmaceutical or of a new indication for use of an approved diagnostic radiopharmaceutical.
In response to the requirements of section 122 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115), FDA published a final rule in the
The rule clarifies existing FDA requirements for approval and evaluation of drug and biological products already in place under the authorities of the FD&C Act and the PHS Act. The information, which is usually submitted as part of a new drug application or biologics license application or as a supplement to an approved application, typically includes, but is not limited to, nonclinical and clinical data on the pharmacology, toxicology, adverse events, radiation safety assessments, and chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. The content and format of an application for approval of a new drug are set forth in § 314.50 (21 CFR 314.50). Under 21 CFR part 315, information required under the FD&C Act and needed by FDA to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of in vivo radiopharmaceuticals still needs to be reported.
Based on the number of submissions (that is, human drug applications and/or new indication supplements for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals) that FDA receives, the Agency estimates that it will receive approximately two submissions annually from two applicants. The hours per response refers to the estimated number of hours that an applicant would spend preparing the information required by the regulations. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency estimates the time needed to prepare a complete application for a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical to be approximately 10,000 hours, roughly one-fifth, or 2,000 hours, of which is estimated to be spent preparing the portions of the application that would be affected by these regulations. The regulation does not impose any additional reporting burden for safety and effectiveness information on diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals beyond the estimated burden of 2,000 hours
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 9, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341) directs FDA to issue regulations establishing definitions and standards of identity for food “[w]henever * * * such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers * * *.” Under section 403(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(g)), a food that is subject to a definition and standard of identity prescribed by regulation is misbranded if it does not conform to such definition and standard of identity. Section 130.17 (21 CFR 130.17) provides for the issuance by FDA of temporary marketing permits that enable the food industry to test consumer acceptance and measure the technological and commercial feasibility in interstate commerce of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable definitions and standards of identity. Section 130.17(c) enables the Agency to monitor the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable definitions and standards of identity. The information so obtained can be used in support of a petition to establish or amend the applicable definition or standard of identity to provide for the variations. Section 130.17(i) specifies the information that a firm must submit
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimated number of temporary marketing permit applications and hours per response is an average based on the Agency's experience with applications received for the past 3 years, and information from firms that have submitted recent requests for temporary marketing permits. Based on this information, we estimate that there will be, on average, approximately 13 firms submitting requests for two temporary marketing permits per year over the next 3 years.
Thus, FDA estimates that 13 respondents will submit two requests for temporary marketing permits annually under § 130.17(c). The estimated number of respondents for § 130.17(i) is minimal because this section is seldom used by the respondents; therefore, the Agency estimates that there will be one or fewer respondents annually with two or fewer requests for extension of the marketing permit under § 130.17(i). The estimated number of hours per response is an average based on the Agency's experience and information from firms that have submitted recent requests for temporary marketing permits. We estimate that 13 respondents each will submit two requests for temporary marketing permits under § 130.17(c) and that it will take a respondent 25 hours per request to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 650 hours. We estimate that one respondent will submit two requests for extension of its temporary marketing permits under § 130.17(i) and that it will take a respondent 2 hours per request to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 4 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 9, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In the
In table 1 of this document, FDA has estimated the reporting burden associated with each section of the rule. FDA believes that the majority of additional BE studies will be reported in ANDAs (submitted under § 314.94), rather than supplements (reported in § 314.97), because it is unlikely than an ANDA holder will conduct BE studies with a drug after the drug has been approved. With respect to the reporting of additional BE studies in amendments (submitted under § 314.96), this should also account for a small number of reports, because most BE studies will be conducted on a drug prior to the submission of the ANDA, and will be reported in the ANDA itself.
FDA estimates it will require approximately 120 hours of staff time to prepare and submit each additional complete BE study report, and approximately 60 hours of staff time for each additional BE summary report. The Agency believes that a complete report will be required approximately 20 percent of the time, while a summary will suffice approximately 80 percent of the time. Based on a weighted-average calculation using the information presented previously in this document, the submission of each additional BE study is expected to take 72 hours of staff time ([120 × 0.2] + [60 × 0.8]).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 9, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use
Under Section 403A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)), States may petition FDA for exemption from Federal preemption of State food labeling and standard of identity requirements. Section 100.1(d) (21 CFR 100.1(d)) sets forth the information a State is required to submit in such a petition. The information required under section 100.1(d) enables FDA to determine whether the State food labeling or standard of identity requirement satisfies the criteria of section 403A(b) of the FD&C Act for granting exemption from Federal preemption.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The reporting burden for § 100.1(d) is minimal because petitions for exemption from preemption are seldom submitted by States. In the last 3 years, FDA has not received any new petitions for exemption from preemption; therefore, the Agency estimates that one or fewer petitions will be submitted annually. Although FDA has not received any new petitions for exemption from preemption in the last 3 years, it believes these information collection provisions should be extended to provide for the potential future need of a State or local government to petition for an exemption from preemption under the provisions of section 403(A) of the FD&C Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry on Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 9, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA plans to use the data collected under this generic clearance to inform its communications campaigns on a variety of topics related to products that the FDA regulates. FDA expects the data to help staff message developers achieve FDA communication objectives. FDA also plans to use the data to help tailor print, broadcast, and electronic media communications in order for them to have powerful and desired impacts on target audiences. The data will not be used for the purposes of making policy or regulatory decisions.
The information collected will serve two major purposes. First, as formative research it will provide the critical knowledge needed about target audiences. FDA must explore audiences' beliefs, perceptions, and decision-making processes on specific topics in order to meet the basic objectives of its risk communication campaigns. Such knowledge will provide the needed target audience understanding to design effective communication strategies, messages, and product labels. These communications will aim to improve public understanding of the risks and benefits of using various FDA-regulated products by providing users with a better context in which to place risk information more completely.
Second, as pretesting, it will give FDA some information about the potential effectiveness of messages and materials in reaching and successfully communicating with their intended audiences. Testing messages with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine messages while still in the developmental stage. Respondents may be asked to give their reaction to the messages in person or online.
FDA's Centers and Offices will use this mechanism to test the usability of messages about FDA-regulated products for consumers, patients, industry representatives, or health care professionals. The data will not be used for the purposes of making policy or regulatory decisions.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
There will be two lengths of surveys conducted, depending on whether the survey is in person or remote and online. An in-person survey will last an average of 60 minutes and take place at an FDA computer or at a nongovernmental location; a remote survey will last approximately 30 minutes and take place at the participant's computer. These estimates were determined through analysis of times from previous usability surveys using similar questions, survey of usability professionals to ascertain average times for users to perform tasks, and a pilot survey of 10 internal users comprised of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and CDC contractors. Some remote surveys will take much less time. The majority of usability surveys conducted at CDC were done remotely; thus FDA estimates that in the future more surveys will be done remotely rather than in person.
Estimate of survey respondents was based on an estimate of the ideal number of usability surveys that FDA would conduct over a 3-year period. Factored in were initial surveys and subsequent followup surveys utilizing a satisfactory level of participants. Because FDA has not conducted these types of surveys at the level needed previously, it is anticipated that most of FDA's communications will require some sort of usability survey. Additionally, FDA anticipates conducting a number of important baseline surveys for its home Web page and other highly trafficked subsites in order to redesign these pages as part of FDA's priority to more effectively utilize its Web site.
Annually, FDA projects about 125 studies using the variety of test methods listed above. FDA is requesting this burden so as not to restrict the Agency's
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Institutional Review Boards” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Paul Tran at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS.
Request for Information.
This document is a request for information regarding specific aspects of the regulatory policies and standards that may be applied to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (oral fluid specimen).
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):
•
•
•
•
• For delivery in Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Attention: Division of Workplace Programs, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1049, Rockville, MD 20850. To deliver your comments to the Rockville address, call telephone number (240) 276-2600 in advance to schedule your delivery with one of our staff members. Because access to the interior of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to either schedule your drop off or leave your comments with the security guard in the main lobby of the building.
LT Eugene Hayes, Division of Workplace Programs, CSAP, SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1033, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (240) 276-1459 (phone), (240) 276-2610 (Fax), or e-mail at
I.
Section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. Section 7301 note, required the Department to establish scientific and technical guidelines and amendments in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and to publish Mandatory Guidelines which establish comprehensive standards for all aspects of laboratory drug testing and procedures, including standards that require the use of the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests and strict procedures governing the chain of custody of specimens collected for drug testing. These revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines promote and establish standards that use the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of urine drug tests, while reflecting the ongoing process of review and evaluation of legal, scientific, and societal concerns.
SAMHSA's chartered CSAP Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) will be the vehicle to provide recommendations for including alternative specimens (oral fluid) in the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The overall intent of this effort will be publication of the proposed revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines in the
To assist the DTAB, we are soliciting written comments and statements from the general public and industry stakeholders regarding a variety of issues related to oral fluid specimen drug testing, including analytes, cutoffs, specimen validity, collection, collection devices, and testing.
II.
•
•
•
•
•
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670-NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C), Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), has submitted the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). NPPD is soliciting comments concerning the Broad Stakeholder Survey.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 9, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/CS&C/OEC, Attn.: Richard Reed, 202-343-1666,
•
•
OEC, formed under Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
The Office of Policy, DHS.
Notice of Open Teleconference Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will meet via teleconference for the purpose of deliberating on recommendations by the HSAC's Community Resilience Task Force.
The HSAC conference call will take place from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. E.D.T. on Monday, June 27, 2011. Please be advised that the meeting is scheduled for one hour and may end early if all business is completed before 2 p.m.
The HSAC meeting will be held via teleconference. Members of the public interested in participating in this teleconference meeting may do so by following the process outlined below (see “Public Participation”).
Written comments must be submitted and received by June 23, 2011. Comments must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2011-0039 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Erika Nixon at hsac@dhs.gov or 202-447-3135.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. The HSAC provides independent advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to aid in the creation and implementation of critical and actionable policies and capabilities across the spectrum of homeland security operations. The HSAC will meet to review and approve the Community Resilience Task Force's report of findings and recommendations.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3322-EM), dated May 6, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 6, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5208 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Louisiana resulting from flooding beginning on April 25, 2011, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for subgrantees' regular employees.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. Stolar, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
The parishes of Avoyelles, Ascension, Assumption, Catahoula, Concordia, East Carroll, Iberia, Iberville, LaSalle, Madison, Pointe Coupee, East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, St. John, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Tensas, Terrebonne, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1980-DR), dated May 9, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 9, 2011.
Barry, Carter, Christian, Douglas, Oregon, Ozark, Polk, Shannon, Texas, Washington, Webster, and Wright Counties for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance.
Cape Girardeau, Dunklin, Mississippi, New Madrid, Pemiscot, Ripley, St. Francois, and Stone Counties for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
Jasper and Newton Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1981-DR), dated May 10, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 10, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of North Dakota resulting from flooding beginning on February 14, 2011, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of North Dakota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Barnes, Benson, Bottineau, Burke, Cass, Cavalier, Dickey, Eddy, Foster, Grand Forks, Grant, Griggs, Kidder, LaMoure, Logan, McHenry, McIntosh, McLean, Mercer, Morton, Mountrail, Nelson, Pembina, Pierce, Ramsey, Ransom, Renville, Richland, Rolette, Sargent, Sheridan, Steele, Stutsman, Towner, Traill, Walsh, Ward, Wells, and Williams Counties and the Spirit Lake Nation, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Reservation for Public Assistance.
All counties and Indian Tribes within the State of North Dakota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1980-DR), dated May 9, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 9, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Missouri resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding beginning on April 19, 2011, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Elizabeth Turner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Butler, Mississippi, New Madrid, St. Louis, and Taney Counties for Individual Assistance.
St. Louis County for Public Assistance. Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
All counties and the Independent City of St. Louis within the State of Missouri are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
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 and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Harry Messner, Office of Asset Management, Policy and Participation Standards Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2121 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting 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 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
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 must be received within sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Joy Hadley, Director, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1515 (this is not a toll free number). Copies of the proposed forms and other available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Hadley.
The Department is submitting 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 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
This Notice also lists the following information:
HUD-92001-A, FHA Lender Approval Application Form.
HUD-92001-B, FHA Branch Registration Form.
HUD 92001-C, Noncompliances on Title I Lenders.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
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 and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
The Department is submitting 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 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
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
Program Contact, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary Teresa B. Payne, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-6423 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting 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 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
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 and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Joyce Allen, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 471 7th Street, SW., Washington DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-6130 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting 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 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Rita, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, Room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll-free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before July 11, 2011.
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or e-mail
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 10(a)(1)(A), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import brain specimens from lar gibbon (
The applicant requests a renewal of the permit to import biological samples from ring-tailed lemur (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from mouse lemur species (
The applicant requests a permit to import 1.1, live, captive-born cheetahs (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the West Coal Creek Coal Lease-by-Application (LBA) included in the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The document is available electronically on the following Web site:
• Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; and
• Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming High Plains District Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604.
Ms. Teresa Johnson, EIS Project Manager, at 307-261-7510 or Mr. Tyson Sackett, Acting Wyoming Coal Coordinator, at 307-775-6487. Ms. Johnson's office is located at the BLM High Plains District Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604. Mr. Sackett's office is located at the BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009.
The West Coal Creek coal tract ROD addresses leasing Federal coal in Campbell County, Wyoming, administered by the BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office. The BLM approves Alternative 1, the No Action alternative for this LBA in the South Gillette Area Coal Final EIS, which is to reject this application. A large portion of the West Coal Creek LBA study area contains lands held by a qualified surface owner who currently has not consented to coal leasing. As a result, the BLM has determined that there are insufficient coal reserves in the remaining lands within the study area to configure a tract that would be in the public interest. Rejection of the lease application does not preclude an application to lease the same tract, or a tract configured with the lands included in the study area, in the future. The BLM will not schedule or conduct a competitive coal lease sale for the West Coal Creek LBA.
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), as provided in 43 CFR part 4, within thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this NOA in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and associated regulations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates, analyzes, and discloses to the public additional air quality impacts of the Greater Natural Buttes proposal to develop natural gas in Uintah County, Utah. All other environmental impacts are incorporated by reference to the Draft EIS. This notice announces a 45-day public comment period to meet the requirements of the NEPA.
The Supplement to the Draft EIS will be available for public review for 45 calendar days following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its NOA in the
Comments on the Supplement may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please reference the Greater Natural Buttes Supplement when submitting your comments. Comments and information submitted on the Supplement to the Draft EIS for the Greater Natural Buttes project, including names, e-mail addresses, and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the Vernal Field Office. The BLM will not accept anonymous comments. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Stephanie Howard, Project Manager, BLM Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078; telephone, 435-781-4400.
The Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) is located in Uintah County, Utah.
The areas described aggregate approximately 162,911 acres in an existing gas producing area, according to the official plats of the surveys of the said lands, on file in the Bureau of Land Management.
In response to a proposal submitted by Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, the BLM published in the October 5, 2007,
This notice announces a Supplement to the Draft EIS, which is located online at
The BLM asks that those submitting comments make them as specific as possible with reference to chapters, page numbers, and paragraphs in the Supplement to the Draft EIS. Comments that contain only opinions or preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be considered, and included, as part of the BLM decision-making process. The most useful comments will contain new technical or scientific information, identify data gaps in the impact analysis, or provide technical or scientific rationale for opinions or preferences.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Draft Programmatic Agreement (PA), which is included as an Appendix to the EIS, for the Southern Nevada Water Authority's (SNWA) Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project (SNWA Project), and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the SNWA Project Draft EIS and Draft PA within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Draft EIS or the Draft PA for the SNWA Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Penny Woods, Project Manager, telephone (775) 861-6466; address P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520; e-mail
Cooperating Agencies:
Review copies are also available in the following locations:
The Draft EIS describes and analyzes SNWA's rights-of-way (ROW) request over public land for the SNWA Project, which would develop and convey groundwater rights that may be granted by the Nevada State Engineer (NSE) to SNWA in Spring, Snake, Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave valleys based on applications that are currently pending before the NSE. The Draft EIS addresses the ROW request as submitted by SNWA; alternative alignments of pipelines, power lines and other ancillary facilities; alternative pumping
A programmatic agreement is a program alternative allowed under the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) for complying with the historic properties review process required of every Federal undertaking pursuant to section 106 of NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800.14). When executed by the BLM, the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ACHP, and SNWA, the terms of the executed PA will set forth the conditions for satisfying the SNWA Project's obligations under section 106 of the NHPA.
Under the proposed action, SNWA could be granted a ROW that would permit the development and operation of a system of regional water facilities that could be used to convey up to 217,655 acre-feet-per-year (afy) of groundwater rights, including 184,655 afy of SNWA groundwater rights (if permitted by the NSE) with the remaining capacity reserved for future use by Lincoln County. The exact amount of groundwater available to the proposed project is dependent upon the future action by the NSE. The EIS and ROW application do not authorize or address permitting of water rights. The NSE is solely responsible for those issues.
The proposed ROW project would include approximately 306 miles of a buried water pipeline between 16 and 84 inches in diameter; approximately 323 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV), 69 kV and 25 kV overhead power lines; 2 primary electrical substations, 5 secondary substations, 3 pressure-reducing facilities; 5 pumping stations; 6 regulating tanks; a 40-million-gallon-per-day buried storage reservoir; a 165 million-gallon-per-day water treatment facility; and associated access roads.
This is the initial EIS in a tiered NEPA evaluation process. As described in Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, a tiered NEPA process can be used for Proposed Actions such as the SNWA Project when specific locations have not been defined for all phases. Under NEPA, tiering involves a two-fold approach wherein general analyses are first covered in a broad EIS and more detailed issues are tiered (referenced) to that broader EIS. Once the broader EIS is completed, subsequent narrower statements or environmental assessments incorporate the general discussions from the broader EIS by reference, allowing the subsequent document to concentrate on the issues specific to the project or project phase. The NEPA regulations encourage Federal agencies to tier environmental documents for multi-stage projects to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the issues that are ready for decision at each level of environmental review.
This EIS is broad in scope and evaluates the potential environmental effects of granting SNWA's proposed ROW, including: (1) Pumping up to 184,655 afy of SNWA groundwater rights (if permitted by the NSE); and (2) Construction of the SNWA Project's proposed main pipeline, power facilities, and water storage and treatment facilities which are part of the current ROW request. These mainline facilities are not all of the facilities ultimately required for construction and operation of the SNWA Project, if fully developed. Full development of the SNWA Project would likely require between 108 and 131 groundwater production wells, 100-250 miles of collector pipeline and overhead power lines, and 2 additional pumping stations and electrical substations. The specific locations of these additional facilities are dependent upon future rulings of the NSE (whether and where the SNWA's groundwater right applications are granted), exploratory drilling (which would determine where SNWA can best access its groundwater rights), and agency agreements (SNWA may agree to change the location, timing, and quantity of pumping to minimize or mitigate effects to sensitive resources). When SNWA later applies for site-specific ROWs for these additional groundwater production wells and associated facilities, then additional NEPA compliance, tiered to this EIS, would consider the site-specific effects of future facility construction and operation. The sources of water for the reserved Lincoln County capacity have not been determined at this time, and would be subject to additional NEPA compliance, tiered to this EIS, before it could be conveyed and delivered by the SNWA Project.
A permanent ROW of up to 100 feet in width and temporary construction ROWs of an additional 100 feet would be required for the main and lateral pipelines. In areas of level terrain and stable soil conditions, the amount of disturbance of the temporary ROWs may be reduced, however, any potential reductions would not be known until after detailed alignment surveys and project design have been completed.
The permanent ROW needed for power line combinations containing 230 kV and/or 69 kV conductors would be 100 feet in width. This width is required for safety considerations to allow for displacement of the conductors. Only a portion of the permanent ROWs would be disturbed for installation of power poles and access roads where needed. The permanent ROWs for the power lines carrying only 25 kV are 50 feet in width. Temporary ROWs for the power lines are not required because the permanent ROWs are sufficient for construction needs.
In connection with the development of the Draft PA, the BLM identified 15 federally recognized Indian tribes with a traditional or historic connection to the areas potentially impacted by the proposed project. The BLM has initiated government-to-government consultation and invited those 15 tribes to sign the PA as concurring parties. The BLM has also granted consulting party status to certain interested organizations, groups, and agencies that have requested such status for the Section 106 process.
The Draft PA describes the roles and responsibilities of the signatories, the procedures and standards for determining the areas of potential effects from the project for direct, visual, indirect and cumulative effects. This document also describes the roles of Indian tribes and consulting parties in the Section 106 consultation process, and describes the procedures that will be used to encourage participation and take into account the comments of the public. The Draft PA also describes procedures for identifying historic properties that may be affected by the project, determine the eligibility of such properties for the National Register of Historic Places, assessing effects from the project to qualified historic properties, and seeking ways to avoid, minimize, mitigate or otherwise resolve any identified adverse effects to such properties. The Draft PA provides procedures for dealing with unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources, monitoring certain segments of construction by qualified archaeologists and Indian tribal monitors, resolving disputes among the signatories and concurring parties, and otherwise comply with Section 106 obligation.
The BLM notified the public of nine scoping meetings that were held in various communities in Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine counties (Nevada) and Tooele and Juab counties (Utah) between April 26 and May 11, 2005. The public was offered the opportunity to provide oral and written comments at the scoping meetings. A total of 648 individuals attended the scoping meetings, of which 210 individuals provided oral comments. During this first scoping period a total of 954
In the summer of 2006, additional scoping was conducted to provide opportunity for public comment on substantive SNWA Project changes: (1) Providing additional pipeline capacity for use by Lincoln County; and (2) Removal of the Tikaboo Lateral in Tikaboo Valley North. A total of 256 substantive letters and no form letters were received during the second scoping period.
During both scoping periods, a total of 1,210 substantive letters were received. Of this total, 597 were received from Nevada, 459 from Utah, and 154 from other states or countries. Key issues identified by individuals, groups, and governmental entities include water supply and use, competing or conflicting land uses, and cumulative impacts and connected actions.
The BLM has prepared the current draft version of the PA in consultation with the Nevada SHPO, ACHP and SNWA. In 2007, the BLM initiatiated government-to-government consultation with the interested tribes in the project area. In 2011, the BLM convened tribal information sessions in Ely and Las Vegas, Nevada, to discuss the Draft PA and to receive comments and suggestions on the Draft PA and other aspects of the project from interested Indian tribes. In March 2011, the BLM also coordinated with the nine other consulting parties that requested to participate in the Section 106 process.
Please note that public comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, Nevada during regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix, that the National Park System Advisory Board will conduct a teleconference meeting on June 30, 2011. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person in Washington, DC. During this teleconference, the Board will make recommendations to the Director of the National Park Service concerning the National Park Service's 2016 centennial anniversary.
The teleconference meeting will be held on June 30, 2011, from 1 p.m., to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, inclusive.
For information concerning the National Park System Advisory Board or to request to address the Board, contact Shirley Sears Smith, National Park Service, 1201 I Street, NW., 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, telephone 202-354-3955, e-mail
Due to the limited scope of this meeting, the National Park Service has determined that a teleconference will be the most efficient way to convene the Board members. The Board meeting will be open to the public in the same way that other Board meetings have been open to the public. Space and facilities to accommodate the public are limited and attendees will be accommodated on a first-come basis. Opportunities for oral comment will be limited to no more than 3 minutes per speaker and no more than 15 minutes total. The Board's Chairman will determine how time for oral comments will be allotted. Anyone may file with the Board a written statement concerning matters to be discussed. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Draft minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection about 12 weeks after the meeting in the 12th floor conference room at 1201 I Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 21, 2011. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by June 27, 2011. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Honeywell International Inc. on June 6, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain GPS navigation products, components thereof, and related software. The complaint names as respondents Furuno Electric Co., Ltd of Japan and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. of Camas, WA.
The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;
(iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and
(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2814”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16504) and determined on July 6, 2010 that it would conduct full reviews (75 FR 42782, July 22, 2010). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determination in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on June 6, 2011. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4237 (June 2011) entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on April 4, 2011, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation.
Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 29, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin Texas. 75 FR 16837 (Mar. 29, 2010). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuits, chipsets, and products containing same including televisions, media players, and cameras by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455 (“the `455 patent”), 5,715,014, and 7,199,306. The complaint, as amended, named the following respondents: Panasonic Corporation of Osaka, Japan; Panasonic Corporation of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey; Funai Electric Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey Funai (collectively “Funai”); JVC Americas Corp. of Wayne, New Jersey; Victor Company of Japan Limited of Yokohama, Japan; Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, Best Buy.Com, LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., all of Richfield, Minnesota (collectively “Best Buy”); B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. of New York, New York; Huppin's Hi-Fi Photo & Video, Inc. of Spokane, Washington; Buy.com Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California; QVC, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania; Crutchfield Corporation of Charlottesville, VA. Only Funai, Best-Buy, and Wal-Mart remain as respondents, and only the `455 patent is currently at issue.
On April 4, 2011, the presiding ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337 by respondents Funai, Best-Buy and Wal-Mart. The ALJ concluded that none of the accused products infringe the `455 patent because the third-party documents relied on by complainant to show infringement were entitled to no evidentiary weight. The ALJ further concluded that otherwise all
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on May 16, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in
In a civil action filed simultaneously with the Consent Decree, the United States seeks a civil penalty against Allied Metal Company (“Allied”), pursuant to Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for alleged environmental violations of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR. These violations are alleged to have occurred at Allied's facility located at 4528 W. Division Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Under the proposed settlement, Allied will be required to (1) permanently shut down its thermal chip dryer and remove it as an emission source from its permit; (2) surrender all pollution credits relating to emissions from the chip dryer; (3) perform a supplemental environmental project by spending $132,627 to retrofit municipal or school bus diesel vehicles within Cook County by installing pollution control devices to reduce the emissions of particulate matter and hydrocarbons; (4) perform a supplemental environmental project by spending $132,627 to restore, cleanup, rebuild and re-vegitate with plants which have high adsorption capacity for dioxins and furans, the river edge of Allied's property located along the Chicago River; (5) provide periodic reports to EPA regarding its implementation of its obligations under the decree, and (6) pay a civil penalty of $92,210.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Attn. Kurt N. Lindland, Assistant United States Attorney, 219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Flr., Chicago, Illinois, and at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., 14th Flr., Chicago, Illinois. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Legal Services Corporation.
Request for Comments—LSC Budget Request for FY 2013.
The Legal Services Corporation is beginning the process of developing its FY 2013 budget request to Congress and is soliciting suggestions as to what the request should be.
Written comments will be accepted until 12 noon Eastern Time on June 15, 2011.
Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax or e-mail to David L. Richardson, Treasurer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1630 (phone); 202-337-6834 (fax);
David L. Richardson, Comptroller & Treasurer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1510 (phone); 202-337-6834 (fax);
The mission of the Legal Services Corporation (“LSC” or “Corporation”) is to promote equal access to justice in our Nation and to provide for high-quality civil legal assistance to low income persons. LSC submits an annual budget request directly to Congress and receives an annual direct appropriation to carry out its mission. For the current fiscal year, FY 2011, after a rescission, LSC received an appropriation of $404,190,000 of which $378,641,200 is for basic field programs and required independent audits; $4,191,600 is for the Office of Inspector General; $16,966,000 is for management and grants oversight; $3,393,200 is for technology initiative grants; and $998,000 is for loan repayment assistance. Public Law 112-10, 125 Stat. 38 (April 15, 2011).
As part of its annual budget and appropriation process, LSC notifies the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) in September as to what the LSC budget request to Congress will be for the next fiscal year. Accordingly, LSC is currently in the process of formulating its FY 2013 budget request. The Finance Committee of the LSC Board of Directors will meet on June 16, 2011, to hear testimony and commence deliberations on what to recommend to the full Board for adoption as the Corporation's FY 2013 budget request.
LSC invites public comment on what its FY 2013 budget request should be. Interested parties may submit comments to LSC by 12 noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011. More information about LSC may be found at LSC's Web site:
5:30 p.m., Thursday, June 9, 2011.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. 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, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
President's Committee on the National Medal of Science (1182).
Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, 22230.
Closed.
Ms. Mayra Montrose, Program Manager, Room 1282, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
To provide advice and recommendations to the President in the selection of the 2011 National Medal of Science recipients.
To review and evaluate nominations as part of the selection process for awards.
The nominations being reviewed include information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that it will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the “mandatory hearing” portion of this proceeding regarding the December 2008 application by AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (AES) seeking a license under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 authorizing (1) the construction and operation of a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility—denoted as the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF)—in Bonneville County, Idaho; and (2) the receipt, possession, use, delivery, and transfer of byproduct (e.g., calibration sources), source and special nuclear material at the EREF. This evidentiary hearing session will concern environmental matters relating to the proposed issuance of the requested license. In addition, the Licensing Board gives notice that, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.315(a), it will entertain oral and written limited appearance statements from members of the public in connection with this proceeding.
As set forth by the Commission in the July 30, 2009 notice of hearing regarding this proceeding,
The Board will conduct the portion of the mandatory hearing regarding environmental matters beginning at 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time (MT) on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at the Red Lion on the Falls Convention Center, Targhee/Bonneville Rooms, 475 River Parkway,
Any member of the public who plans to attend the mandatory hearing is advised that security measures may be employed at the entrance to the room housing the hearing, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks, and is reminded to allow sufficient time for security screening.
Oral limited appearance sessions regarding the AREVA mandatory hearing proceeding will be on the following dates at the specified location and times:
1.
2.
Any person not a party, or the representative of a party, to this mandatory hearing proceeding will be permitted to make an oral statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern relating to the proceeding. Although these statements do not constitute testimony or evidence, they nonetheless may help the Licensing Board and/or the parties in their consideration of the issues in this portion of the mandatory hearing.
Oral limited appearance statements will be entertained during the hours specified above, or such lesser time as may be necessary to accommodate the speakers who are present. In this regard, if all scheduled and unscheduled speakers present at a session have made a presentation, the Licensing Board reserves the right to terminate the session before the ending times listed above. The Board also reserves the right to cancel the Sunday afternoon and/or Monday evening sessions scheduled above if there has not been a sufficient showing of public interest as reflected by the number of preregistered speakers.
Any member of the public who plans to attend the limited appearance sessions is strongly advised to arrive early to allow time to pass through any security measures that may be employed. Attendees are also requested not to bring any unnecessary hand-carried items, such as packages, briefcases, backpacks, or other items that might need to be examined individually. Items that could readily be used as weapons will not be permitted in the room where these sessions will be held. Also, during these sessions, signs no larger than 18 inches by 18 inches will be permitted, but may not be attached to sticks, held over one's head, or moved about in the room.
The time allotted for each limited appearance statement normally will be no more than five minutes, but may be further limited depending on the number of written requests to make an oral statement that are submitted in accordance with section E below and/or the number of persons present at the designated times to ensure everyone will have an opportunity to speak. In addition, in the case of the Monday evening session, although an individual who previously addressed the Licensing Board at the Sunday afternoon limited appearance session may request an opportunity to make an additional presentation, the Board reserves the right to defer such additional presentations until after it has heard from speakers who have not had an opportunity to make an initial presentation.
A person wishing to make an oral statement who has submitted a timely written request to do so will be given priority over those who have not filed such a request. To be considered timely, a written request to make an oral statement must either be mailed, faxed, or sent by e-mail so as to be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Friday, July 1, 2011. The request must specify the session (Sunday or Monday) during which the requester wishes to make an oral statement. Based on its review of the requests received by July 1, 2011, the Licensing Board may decide that the Sunday afternoon and/or Monday evening sessions will not be held due to a lack of adequate interest in those sessions.
Written requests to make an oral statement should be submitted to:
As provided in 10 CFR 2.315(a), any person not a party, or the representative of a party, to the proceeding may submit a written statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern relating to this proceeding. Although these statements do not constitute testimony or evidence, they nonetheless may help the Board or the parties in their consideration of the issues in this proceeding.
A written limited appearance statement may be submitted at any time and should be sent to the Office of the Secretary using one of the methods prescribed below:
In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written limited appearance statement should be sent to the Chairman of this Licensing Board as follows:
The AES application and various staff documents relating to the application are available on the NRC Web site at
These and other documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically from the publicly-available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
Any updates or revisions to the mandatory hearing schedule or the schedule for limited appearance sessions can be found on the NRC Web site at
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME), has issued a Director's Decision with regard to a petition dated September 30, 2010, filed by Eric J. Epstein, hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner.” The petition was supplemented during an October 19, 2010, Petition Review Board (PRB) meeting, via teleconference, with the Petitioner and FirstEnergy Corporation, hereinafter referred to as FENOC. [NOTE: GPU Nuclear is the license holder for Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2).] The transcript of this teleconference is available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS No. ML103120216). The petition concerns the decommissioning funding for TMI-2.
The petition requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take enforcement action in the form of a Demand for Information from FENOC relating to inadequate financial assurance provided by the licensee for TMI-2's nuclear decommissioning fund.
As the basis for the September 30, 2010, request, the Petitioner states that the current radiological decommissioning cost estimate is $831.5 million and the current amount in the decommissioning trust fund is $484.5 million, as of December 31, 2008. Further, the Petitioner states that FENOC's decommissioning report is inadequate, and fails to account for the special status of TMI-2, the current level of underfunding, or the fact that decommissioning rate recovery for Metropolitan Edison and Pennsylvania Electric ceases per Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Orders on December 31, 2010.
On October 19, 2010, the Petitioner and licensee met with the staff's PRB via teleconference. The meeting gave the Petitioner and the licensee an opportunity to provide additional information and to clarify issues identified in the petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the Petitioner and to the licensee for comment on April 5, 2011 (ADAMS Nos. ML110680183 and ML110940183). The Petitioner responded with comments on May 1, 2011 (ADAMS No. ML111260128) and the licensee responded on April 18, 2011 (ADAMS No. ML11116A073). Comments submitted by the Petitioner and licensee, and the NRC staff responses, are discussed in the attachment to the Director's Decision.
The Director of FSME has determined that the request for NRC to demand information relating to inadequate financial assurance provided by the licensee for TMI-2's nuclear decommissioning fund, be denied. The request is denied because the updated decommissioning funding status report submitted by GPU Nuclear on March 29, 2010, for TMI-2, which is the latest site-specific decommissioning funding plan, provides adequate decommissioning funding assurance in accordance with NRC regulations. GPU Nuclear is owned by FENOC. A complete discussion of the reasons for this decision are explained in the Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-11-04), the complete text of which is available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site,
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission to review. As provided for by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the Decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al. (the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, which authorize operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two boiling water reactors located in Southport, North Carolina.
By letter dated December 16, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML103630405, as supplemented by letter dated January 27, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110400193), and pursuant to Title 10 of the
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request using the regulations contained in 10 CFR 26.205 and 10 CFR 26.207, and related Statement of Considerations in the 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs” Final Rule published in the
As stated in 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, “Managing Fatigue,” the requirements in 10 CFR 26.205 apply to individuals identified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). These individuals' duties are: (1) Operating or onsite directing of the operation of structures, systems and components (SSCs) that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety; (2) performing health physics or chemistry duties required as a member of the onsite emergency response organization's minimum shift complement; (3) performing the duties of a fire brigade member who is responsible for understanding the effects of fire and fire suppressants on safe shutdown capability; (4) performing maintenance or onsite directing of the maintenance of SSCs that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety; and (5) performing security duties as an armed security force officer, alarm station operator, response team leader, or watchperson.
The regulations in 10 CFR 26.205(c) require that an individual's work hours be scheduled consistent with the objective of preventing impairment from fatigue due to the duration, frequency, or sequencing of successive shifts.
Paragraph 26.205(d) of 10 CFR provides the actual work hour controls, which include a maximum of 16 work hours in any 24-hour period, 26 work hours in any 48-hour period, and 72 work hours in any 7-day period. This section also specifies the minimum break times between work periods and the minimum number of days off that should be provided by a licensee to the identified individuals.
Paragraph 10 CFR 26.205(b) provides the requirement and method to calculate work hours and days worked. Paragraph 10 CFR 26.205(b)(3) provides the requirement to include in the “calculation period” all work hours performed for the licensee prior to beginning or resuming duties subject to work hour controls.
Paragraph 10 CFR 26.207(d) provides an allowance for licensees to not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during declared emergencies, as defined in the licensee's emergency plan.
The licensee in its letter dated December 16, 2010, states that the requested exemption applies to individuals who perform duties identified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5) who are designated by BSEP as “covered workers.” The requested exemption is to support effective response to severe weather conditions when travel to and from the BSEP site may not be safe or even possible. During these times, the licensee sequesters sufficient individuals, including covered workers, to perform work as a member of the storm crew. The licensee staffs those who will be sequestered onsite during the severe wind event to perform two 12-hour shifts. The licensee states that the storm crews are augmented by the emergency response organization (ERO) personnel based on the severity category of the storm. Therefore, the exemption request would also apply to members of the ERO who are subject to work hour controls and who will also be sequestered on site during the severe weather conditions. The exemption request specifies that the exemption is not for discretionary maintenance activities.
The licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.206(c) and (d) during the period of time defined by the following entry and exit conditions.
The licensee added that upon exiting the exemption the work hour controls will be applied and that the affected individuals will be provided a minimum of a 10-hour break prior to the start of the first shift following exiting the exemption.
The licensee states that there is no need for an exemption for BSEP covered workers during the period of declared emergency when the sustained wind speed is greater than 100 miles per hour (mph), since, in accordance with 10 CFR 26.207(d), licensees are not required to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during a declared emergency. The licensee indicated that the exemption will be applied during the period defined by the entry and exit conditions, regardless of whether BSEP enters the period of declared emergency. As a result, there will be only one set of entry and exit conditions.
In its letter dated December 16, 2010, the licensee committed to maintain the following guidance in a site procedure:
• The entry conditions necessary to sequester site personnel that are consistent with the conditions specified in the BSEP exemption request.
• Provisions for ensuring that personnel who are not performing duties are provided an opportunity as well as accommodations for restorative rest.
• The condition for departure from the exemption, consistent with conditions specified in the exemption request.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 26.9, the Commission may, upon application of an interested person or on its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 26 when it determines the exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
The exemption being requested for BSEP would allow the site to sequester specific individuals on site and to not meet the work hour scheduling and control requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) prior and subsequent to severe weather conditions such as tropical storms and hurricanes. As stated above, 10 CFR 26.9 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 26. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is authorized by the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The fatigue management provisions found in 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I are designed as an integrated approach to managing both cumulative and acute fatigue by the licensees and individuals employed at licensed facilities. It is the responsibility of the licensees to provide training to individuals regarding fatigue management. It is also the responsibility of the licensee to provide covered workers with work schedules that are consistent with the objective of preventing impairment from fatigue due to duration, frequency or sequencing of successive shifts. Individuals are required to remain fit for duty while at work.
BSEP Units 1 and 2 are located in southeastern North Carolina, at the mouth of the Cape Fear River. As such, the site can be impacted by tropical storms and hurricane force winds, typically from June to November. The proposed exemption would support effective response to severe weather conditions when travel to and from the BSEP site may not be safe or even possible. During these times BSEP plans to sequester sufficient individuals to staff two 12-hour shifts to maintain the safe and secure operation of the facility.
As a tropical storm or hurricane approaches landfall, high wind speeds in excess of wind speeds that create unsafe travel conditions may occur. The National Hurricane Center defines hurricane-force winds as sustained winds of 74 mph or higher. Severe wind preparedness activities become difficult once winds reach tropical storm force; a tropical storm warning is issued 36 hours in advance of the anticipated onset of tropical storm-force winds (39 to 73 mph). Lessons learned that are included in NUREG-1474, “Effect of Hurricane Andrew on the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station from August 20-30, 1992,” include the acknowledgement that detailed, methodical preparations should be made prior to the onset of hurricane-force winds. The NRC staff finds the BSEP proceduralized severe weather actions are consistent with the lessons learned.
The entry condition for the exemption can occur, even though the wind speed necessary for the declaration of an unusual event (defined in the licensee's emergency response plan as when sustained wind speed is greater than 100 mph) is not reached. This circumstance may still require sequestering a storm crew and a recovery period. Also, high winds that make travel unsafe but that fall below the threshold of a declared emergency, could be present for several days. After the high wind condition has passed, with or without a declared emergency, sufficient numbers of personnel may not be able to access the site to relieve the sequestered individuals. An exemption during these conditions is consistent with the intent of 10 CFR 26.207(d).
The exemption allows the licensee to sequester individuals, who are needed to maintain the safe operation of the facility during storm conditions, to staff two 12-hour shifts of workers consisting of personnel from operations, maintenance, health physics, chemistry and security and augmented by ERO individuals. Sequestered individuals will be allowed a 12-hour break between successive work periods and no worker will be scheduled to work more than 12 consecutive hours. The BSEP site procedure 0AI-68 provides for the establishment of sleeping areas (bunking facilities) that provide an accommodation for restorative rest for the off-crew. A 12-hour break provides each individual with an opportunity for restorative rest. However, the accommodations and potentially stressful circumstances may not be as restful as individuals would otherwise desire. Under the circumstances, these actions are consistent with the acceptable practice of fatigue management.
The exemption allows the licensee to provide for the use of whatever plant staff and resources are necessary to respond to a plant emergency and ensure that the BSEP units achieve and maintain a safe and secure status and can be safely restarted. The exemption also allows maintenance activities for structures, systems and components that are significant to public health and safety to be performed, if required. However, the exemption does not apply to discretionary maintenance activities. The NRC staff finds the exclusion of discretionary maintenance from the exemption consistent with the intent of the exemption, since it supports the use of necessary plant staff resources to respond to a plant emergency.
Following the severe weather event, BSEP will return to work hour controls when senior plant management determines that sufficient personnel are available to return to the site to make the reinstitution of work hour controls possible. When this determination is made, full compliance with 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) is again required.
When the exemption period(s) ends, the licensee is immediately subject to the scheduling requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and the work hour/rest break/days off requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(d), and must ensure that any individual performing covered work complies with these requirements. Paragraph 10 CFR 26.205(b)(3) requires the licensee to “look back” over the calculation period and count the hours the individual has worked and the rest breaks and days off he/she has had, including those that occurred during the licensee-declared emergency. Hours worked must be below the maximum limits and rest breaks must be above the minimum requirements in order for the licensee to allow the individual to perform covered work. Days off and hours and shifts worked during the licensee-declared emergency and the exempted period before and after the declared emergency, would be counted as usual in the establishment of the applicable shift schedule and compliance with the minimum number of days off requirements.
Granting this exemption is consistent with the intent of 10 CFR 26.207(d) that allows the licensee to not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205 (c) and (d) during declared emergencies as defined in the licensee's emergency plan. The 10 CFR part 26 Final Rule (73 FR 17148) states, “Plant emergencies are extraordinary circumstances that may be most effectively addressed through staff augmentation that can only be practically achieved through the use of work hours in excess of the limits of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d).” The objective of the exemption is to ensure that the control of work hours do not impede a licensee's ability to use whatever staff resources may be necessary to respond to a plant emergency and ensure that the plant reaches and maintains a safe and secure status. The actions described in the exemption request and submitted procedures are consistent with the recommendations in NUREG-1474, “Effect of Hurricane Andrew on the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station from August 20-30, 1992.” Consistent with NUERG-1474, NRC staff expects the licensee would have completed a reasonable amount of hurricane preparation prior to the need to sequester personnel, in order to minimize personnel exposure to high winds.
The underlying purposes of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) are to prevent impairment from fatigue due to duration, frequency, or sequencing of successive shifts. Based on the above evaluation, no new accident precursors are created by the licensee maintaining the additional staff on site necessary to respond to a plant emergency during a severe storm to ensure that the plant maintains a safe and secure status; therefore, the probability of postulated
The proposed exemption would increase the availability of the licensee staff. The exemption would allow licensee staff to remain at or return to the site and perform additional duties to ensure the plant is in a safe configuration during the emergency. Therefore, granting this exemption is in the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 26.9, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Carolina Power & Light Company an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) for BSEP, Units 1 and 2 during periods of severe weather conditions such as tropical storm and hurricane force winds at the site.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 28481).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an existing information collection request (ICR) 3206-0208, Representative Payee Survey. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 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,
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 11, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
The Representative Payee Survey is used to collect information about how the benefits paid to a representative payee have been used or conserved for the benefit of the incompetent annuitant.
Total Burden Hours: 3,667.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206-0168, Alternative Annuity Election. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 9, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Linda Bradford (Acting) Deputy Associate Director, Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500 or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 4332, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
RI 20-80 is used for individuals who are eligible to elect whether to receive a reduced annuity and a lump-sum payment equal to their retirement contributions (alternative form of annuity) or an unreduced annuity and no lump sum.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 30b1-5 (17 CFR 270.30b1-5) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The Commission estimates that there are 2,580 management investment companies, with a total of approximately 9,160 portfolios, that are governed by the rule. For purposes of this analysis, the burden associated with the requirements of rule 30b1-5 has been included in the collection of information requirements of Form N-Q, rather than the rule.
The collection of information under rule 30b1-5 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 30b1-5 is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas A. Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 22d-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (17 CFR 270.22d-1) provides registered
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden(s) of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-31(a)(2)) requires that shareholders of a registered investment management or face-amount certificate company (collectively, “funds”) ratify or reject the selection of the fund's independent public accountant. Rule 32a-4 (17 CFR 270.32a-4) exempts funds from this requirement if (i) The fund's board of directors establishes an audit committee composed solely of independent directors with responsibility for overseeing the fund's accounting and auditing processes,
Each fund that chooses to rely on rule 32a-4 incurs two collection of information burdens. The first, related to the board of directors' adoption of the audit committee charter, occurs once, when the committee is established. The second, related to the fund's maintenance and preservation of a copy of the charter in an easily accessible place, is an ongoing annual burden. The information collection requirement in rule 32a-4 enables the Commission to monitor the duties and responsibilities of an independent audit committee formed by a fund relying on the rule.
Commission staff estimates that, on average, the board of directors takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board,
Because virtually all funds extant have now adopted audit committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information burden associated with adopting audit committee charters is limited to the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 117 new funds each year,
As noted above, all funds that rely on rule 32a-4 are subject to the ongoing collection of information requirement to preserve a copy of the charter in an easily accessible place. This ongoing requirement, which Commission staff has estimated has no hourly burden, applies to new funds that adopt an audit committee charter each year and to all funds that have previously adopted the charter and continue to maintain it.
When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that those costs average approximately $1500 per fund.
As noted above, Commission staff estimates that approximately 117 new funds each year will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately $175,500.
The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
The collections of information required by rule 32a-4 are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burdens of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change will permit brokers to process specified pool trade (“SPT”) activity at the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) in broker accounts.
In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to implement certain technical enhancements necessary to permit brokers to process SPT activity at MBSD in their broker accounts. SPT activity is currently processed by brokers in their dealer accounts.
MBSD's systems do not currently permit processing of SPT activity in broker accounts. If, after a broker submits an SPT through its dealer account the dealer counterparty submits the other side of the transaction against the broker's broker account (instead of the broker's dealer account), the dealer is required to make a correction to trade input to reflect the correct account. By permitting brokers to process SPT activity in their broker accounts, the proposed change would eliminate a cause of the corrections to trade input and thereby improve efficiency and reduce operational risk. The proposed change enhances FICC's existing services and does not eliminate any of FICC's existing services.
FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares (“Shares”) of the following fund of the WisdomTree Trust (the “Trust”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”): WisdomTree Dreyfus Euro Debt Fund. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the WisdomTree Dreyfus Euro Debt Fund (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc. (“WisdomTree Asset Management”) is the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the Investment Company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio.
As noted above, effective on or after June 27, 2011, the WisdomTree Dreyfus Euro Fund will change its investment objective and investment strategies and be renamed the “WisdomTree Dreyfus Euro Debt Fund.” Upon implementation of the change, the Fund's new investment objective will be to seek a high level of total returns consisting of both income and capital appreciation and its investment strategies will be changed as described below.
Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Fixed Income Securities denominated in Euros.
The Fund intends to focus its investments on “Sovereign Debt.” For these purposes, Sovereign Debt means Fixed Income Securities issued by governments, government agencies and government-sponsored enterprises of countries in the European Union (“EU”) that are denominated in Euros.
The Fund intends to provide broad exposure to countries in the EU. As a general matter, the Fund will invest a higher percentage of its assets in countries with larger and more liquid debt markets. The Fund's exposure to any single country generally will be limited to 20% of the Fund's assets. The percentage of Fund assets invested in a specific country or issuer will change from time to time.
The universe of Euro-denominated Fixed Income Securities currently includes securities that are rated “investment grade” as well as “non-investment grade.” As the Fund intends to provide broad-based exposure to Euro-denominated Fixed Income Securities, the Fund will invest in both investment-grade and non-investment-grade securities. Securities rated investment grade generally are considered to be of higher credit quality and subject to lower default risk. Although securities rated below investment grade may offer the potential for higher yields, they generally are subject to a higher potential risk of loss. The Fund expects to have 75% or more of its assets invested in investment grade bonds, though this percentage may change from time to time in accordance with market conditions and the debt ratings assigned to countries and issuers.
Because the debt ratings of issuers will change from time to time, the exact percentage of the Fund's investments in investment grade and non-investment grade Fixed Income Securities will change from time to time in response to economic events and changes to the credit ratings of such issuers. Within the non-investment grade category some issuers and instruments are considered to be of lower credit quality and at higher risk of default. In order to limit its exposure to these more speculative credits, the Fund will not invest more than 10% of its assets in securities rated BB or below by Moody's, or equivalently rated by S&P or Fitch. The Fund does not intend to invest in unrated securities. However, it may do so to a limited extent, such as where a rated security becomes unrated, if such security is determined by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser to be of comparable quality. In determining whether a security is of “comparable quality,” the Adviser or Sub-Adviser will consider, for example, current information about the credit quality of the issuer and whether or not the issuer of the security has issued other rated securities.
The Fund attempts to limit interest rate risk by maintaining an aggregate portfolio duration of between two and eight years under normal market conditions. Aggregate portfolio duration is important to investors as an indication of the Fund's sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Funds with higher durations generally are subject to greater interest rate risk. An aggregate portfolio duration of between two and eight years generally would be considered to be “intermediate.” The Fund's actual portfolio duration may be longer or shorter depending upon market conditions. The Fund may also invest in short-term Money Market Securities (as defined below) denominated in the currencies of countries in which the Fund invests.
The Fund intends to invest in Fixed Income Securities of at least 13 non-affiliated issuers. The Fund will not concentrate 25% or more of the value of its total assets (taken at market value at the time of each investment) in any one industry, as that term is used in the 1940 Act (except that this restriction does not apply to obligations issued by the U.S. government, or any non-U.S. government, or their respective agencies and instrumentalities or government-sponsored enterprises).
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
In addition to satisfying the above referenced RIC diversification requirements, no portfolio security held by the Fund (other than U.S. government securities and non-U.S. government securities) will represent
Assets not invested in Fixed Income Securities generally will be invested in Money Market Securities. The Fund intends to invest in Money Market Securities in order to help manage cash flows in and out of the Fund, such as in connection with payment of dividends or expenses, and to satisfy margin requirements, to provide collateral or to otherwise back investments in derivative instruments. For these purposes, Money Market Securities include: short-term, high-quality obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or the agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. government; short-term, high-quality securities issued or guaranteed by non-U.S. governments, agencies and instrumentalities; repurchase agreements backed by short-term U.S. government securities or non-U.S. government securities; money market mutual funds; and deposits and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks and financial institutions. All Money Market Securities acquired by the Fund will be rated investment grade, except that the Fund may invest in unrated Money Market Securities that are deemed by the Adviser or Sub-Adviser to be of comparable quality to Money Market Securities rated investment grade. In determining whether a security is of “comparable quality,” the Adviser or Sub-Adviser will consider, for example, current information about the credit quality of the issuer and whether or not the issuer of the security has issued other rated securities.
The Fund may use derivative instruments as part of its investment strategies. Examples of derivative instruments include listed futures contracts,
With respect to certain kinds of derivative transactions entered into by the Fund that involve obligations to make future payments to third parties, including, but not limited to, futures, forward contracts, swap contracts, the purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, or reverse repurchase agreements, the Fund, in accordance with applicable federal securities laws, rules, and interpretations thereof, will “set aside” liquid assets to “cover” open positions with respect to such transactions.
The Fund may engage in foreign currency transactions, and may invest directly in foreign currencies in the form of bank and financial institution deposits, certificates of deposit, and bankers acceptances denominated in a specified non-U.S. currency. The Fund may enter into forward currency contracts in order to “lock in” the exchange rate between the currency it will deliver and the currency it will receive for the duration of the contract.
The Fund may enter into swap agreements, including interest rate swaps and currency swaps (
The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies (including money market funds and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)). The Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in (a) illiquid securities and (b) Rule 144A securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets.
The Fund will not invest in non-U.S. equity securities.
The Fund issues and redeems Shares on a continuous basis at net asset value (“NAV”)
Additional information regarding the Shares and the Fund, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement.
The Fund's Web site (
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 8.600 as the “Portfolio Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio, will be disseminated. The Portfolio Indicative Value will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated and disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session on the Exchange. In addition, during hours when the markets for Fixed Income Securities in the Fund's portfolio are closed, the Portfolio Indicative Value will be updated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session to reflect currency exchange fluctuations.
The dissemination of the Portfolio Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and to provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Information regarding market price and volume of the Shares is and will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association high-speed line.
Intra-day and end-of-day prices are readily available through major market data providers and broker-dealers for the Fixed Income Securities, Money Market Securities and derivative instruments held by the Fund.
The Shares will be subject to Rule 8.600, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act,
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Shares of the Fund will be halted if the “circuit breaker” parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 are reached. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments comprising the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares will be subject to Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern time in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products (which includes Managed Fund Shares) to monitor trading in the Shares. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange's current trading surveillance focuses on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange may obtain information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges who are members of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value is disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Exchange Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4 p.m. Eastern time each trading day.
The basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. According to the Registration Statement, under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Fixed Income Securities denominated in Euros. The Fund intends to focus its investments on Sovereign Debt, as described above. The Fund will invest up to 20% of its net assets only in corporate bonds that the Adviser or Sub-Adviser deems to be sufficiently liquid. Generally a corporate bond must have $200 million or more par amount outstanding and significant par value traded to be considered as an eligible investment. The Fund expects to have 75% or more of its assets invested in investment grade bonds, though this percentage may change from time to time in accordance with market conditions and the debt ratings assigned to countries and issuers. Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest no more than 20% of the value of the Fund's net assets in derivative instruments. Such investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. The Fund will not invest in non-U.S. equity securities.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on its website daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the Portfolio Indicative Value will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its website the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares is and will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The website for the Fund will include a form of the Prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Portfolio Indicative Value, the Disclosed
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Portfolio Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 15, 2011, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-DTC-2011-05 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).
DTC's Memo Segregation Service (“MSEG”) is an optional service which offers a mechanism for broker-dealer participants to protect fully-paid or excess margin securities by allowing the participant to shield from unintended delivery a designated quantity of securities that are in the participant's DTC free account or that may be received during the daily processing cycle. Currently, a participant may set a “counter” for a specified minimum quantity of each security to be held in its account as a threshold to any intraday redelivery. When the counter for a security is greater than the inventory of the participant, MSEG will prevent the delivery of any quantity of the security out of the participant's account unless: (1) The delivery is a permitted delivery (
The MSEG procedures currently support two optional “turnaround” MSEG indicators which enable participants to make deliveries for certain transaction types (including, but not limited to, stock loans and stock loan returns) from certain positions received intraday regardless of any MSEG-related deficit. Recently, DTC was advised by the Regulatory and Clearance Committee of the Securities
In order to effect the rule change described above, DTC is amending its Settlement Service Guide (“Service Guide”), which is incorporated into DTC's procedures, to make existing indicators that allow for the turnaround of stock loans and stock loan returns more restrictive. As a result, the procedures will no longer permit deliveries for stock loans, stock loan returns, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) stock loans, OCC stock loan returns, American Depository Receipt (“ADR”) stock loans, and ADR stock loan returns to be completed from turnaround shares when an MSEG deficit exists.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with DTC's obligation under Section 17A of the Exchange Act, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
Under Executive Order 12372, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is notifying the public that it intends to grant the pending applications of 22 existing Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) for refunding on October 1, 2011, subject to the availability of funds. Nine states do not participate in the EO 12372 process; therefore, their addresses are not included. A short description of the SBDC program follows in the
The SBA is publishing this notice at least 90 days before the expected refunding date. The SBDCs and their mailing addresses are listed below in the address section. A copy of this notice also is being furnished to the respective State single points of contact designated under the Executive Order. Each SBDC application must be consistent with any area-wide small business assistance plan adopted by a State-authorized agency.
A State single point of contact and other interested State or local entities may submit written comments regarding an SBDC refunding within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice to the SBDC.
Mr. Al Salgado, Region Director, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, 501 West Durango Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78207, (210) 458-2450.
Ms. Kristina Oliver, State Director, West Virginia Development Office, 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East, Bldg. 6, Rm. 504, Charleston, WV 25305, (304) 558-2960.
Mr. Clinton Tymes, State Director, University of Delaware, One Innovation Way, Suite 301, Newark, DE 19711, (302) 831-2747.
Ms. Carmen Marti, SBDC Director, Inter American University of Puerto Rico, Ponce de Leon Avenue, #416, Edificio Union Plaza, Seventh Floor, Hato Rey, PR 00918, (787) 763-6811.
Mr. Michael Young, Region Director, University of Houston, 2302 Fannin, Suite 200, Houston, TX 77002, (713) 752-8425.
Ms. Becky Naugle, State Director, University of Kentucky, One Quality Street, Lexington, KY 40507, (859) 257-7668.
Ms. Liz Klimback, Region Director, Dallas Community College, 1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, TX 75212, (214) 860-5835.
Ms. Rene Sprow, State Director, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, 7100 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 401, Baltimore, MD 20742-1815, (301) 403-8300.
Mr. Craig Bean, Region Director, Texas Tech University, 2579 South Loop 289, Suite 114, Lubbock, TX 79423-1637, (806) 745-3973.
Ms. Leonor Dottin, SBDC Director, University of the Virgin Islands, 8000 Nisky Center, Suite 720, St. Thomas, USVI 00802-5804, (340) 776-3206.
Mr. Max Summers, State Director, University of Missouri, 410 South Sixth Street, 200, Engineering North, Columbia, MO 65211, (573) 882-1348.
Mr. Jim Heckman, State Director, Iowa State University, 2321 North Loop Drive, Suite 202, Ames, IA 50011, (515) 294-2037.
Ms. Lenae Quillen-Blume, State Director, Vermont Technical College, P.O. Box 188, Randolph Center, VT 05061-0188, (802) 728-9101.
Antonio Doss, Associate Administrator for SBDCs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Sixth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20416.
A partnership exists between SBA and an SBDC. SBDCs offer training,
The SBDC program uses Federal funds to leverage the resources of states, academic institutions and the private sector to:
(a) Strengthen the small business community;
(b) increase economic growth;
(c) assist more small businesses; and
(d) broaden the delivery system to more small businesses.
The lead SBDC operates a statewide or regional network of SBDC service centers. An SBDC must have a full-time Director. SBDCs must use at least 80 percent of the Federal funds to provide services to small businesses. SBDCs use volunteers and other low cost resources as much as possible.
An SBDC must have a full range of business development and technical assistance services in its area of operations, depending upon local needs, SBA priorities and SBDC program objectives. Services include training and counseling to existing and prospective small business owners in management, marketing, finance, operations, planning, taxes, and any other general or technical area of assistance that supports small business growth.
The SBA district office and the SBDC must agree upon the specific mix of services. They should give particular attention to SBA's priority and special emphasis groups, including veterans, women, exporters, the disabled, and minorities.
An SBDC must meet programmatic and financial requirements imposed by statute, regulations or its Cooperative Agreement. The SBDC must:
(a) Locate service centers so that they are as accessible as possible to small businesses;
(b) Open all service centers at least 40 hours per week, or during the normal business hours of its state or academic Host Organization, throughout the year;
(c) Develop working relationships with financial institutions, the investment community, professional associations, private consultants and small business groups; and
(d) Maintain lists of private consultants at each service center.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
Under Executive Order 12372, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is notifying the public that it intends to grant the pending applications of 39 existing Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) for refunding on January 1, 2012 subject to the availability of funds. Twenty states do not participate in the EO 12372 process therefore, their addresses are not included. A short description of the SBDC program follows in the supplementary information below.
The SBA is publishing this notice at least 90 days before the expected refunding date. The SBDCs and their mailing addresses are listed below in the address section. A copy of this notice also is being furnished to the respective State single points of contact designated under the Executive Order. Each SBDC application must be consistent with any area-wide small business assistance plan adopted by a State-authorized agency.
A State single point of contact and other interested State or local entities may submit written comments regarding an SBDC refunding within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice to the SBDC.
Antonio Doss, Associate Administrator for SBDCs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
A partnership exists between SBA and an SBDC. SBDCs offer training,
The SBDC program uses Federal funds to leverage the resources of states, academic institutions and the private sector to:
(a) Strengthen the small business community;
(b) Increase economic growth;
(c) Assist more small businesses; and
(d) Broaden the delivery system to more small businesses.
The lead SBDC operates a statewide or regional network of SBDC service centers. An SBDC must have a full-time Director. SBDCs must use at least 80 percent of the Federal funds to provide services to small businesses. SBDCs use volunteers and other low cost resources as much as possible.
An SBDC must have a full range of business development and technical assistance services in its area of operations, depending upon local needs, SBA priorities and SBDC program objectives. Services include training and counseling to existing and prospective small business owners in management, marketing, finance, operations, planning, taxes, and any other general or technical area of assistance that supports small business growth.
The SBA district office and the SBDC must agree upon the specific mix of services. They should give particular attention to SBA's priority and special emphasis groups, including veterans, women, exporters, the disabled, and minorities.
An SBDC must meet programmatic and financial requirements imposed by statute, regulations or its Cooperative Agreement. The SBDC must:
(a) Locate service centers so that they are as accessible as possible to small businesses;
(b) Open all service centers at least 40 hours per week, or during the normal business hours of its state or academic Host Organization, throughout the year;
(c) Develop working relationships with financial institutions, the investment community, professional associations, private consultants and small business groups; and
(d) Maintain lists of private consultants at each service center.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 4.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated 04/28/2011.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Alabama, dated 04/28/2011, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/15/2011 and continuing through 05/31/2011. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1980-DR), dated 05/09/2011.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Missouri, dated 05/09/2011, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment #7.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated 04/28/2011.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Alabama, dated 04/28/2011 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1980-DR), dated 05/09/2011.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Missouri, dated 05/09/2011 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment in the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Department will accept comments from the public up to 30 days from June 10, 2011.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Neil Stormer, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (NEA/PI), Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, NEA Mail Room—Room 6258, 2201 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on 202-776-8595 or at
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Since 2002, MEPI has obligated more than $600 million to over 550 organizations, which carry out more than 850 projects in support of political, economic, education and women's rights reform in 20 countries of the Middle East and North Africa. As a
Information will be entered into PRS electronically by respondents. Non-respondents will submit their quarterly reports on paper.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including the exhibit object list, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including under section 7072(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. L. 111-117), as carried forward under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10), the President's Delegation of Responsibilities Related to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, dated March 22, 2001, I hereby determine and certify that the Government of Serbia is:
(1) cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including access for investigators, the provision of documents, timely information on the location, movement, and sources of financial support of indictees, and the surrender and transfer of indictees or assistance in their apprehension, including Ratko Mladic;
(2) taking steps that are consistent with the Dayton Accords to end Serbian financial, political, security and other support which has served to maintain separate Republika Srpska institutions; and
(3) taking steps to implement policies which reflect a respect for minority rights and the rule of law.
This Determination and related Memorandum of Justification shall be provided to the appropriate committees of the Congress. This Determination shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services
The meeting will be held June 27-July 1, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Vail Marriott, 715 West Lionshead Circle, Vail, CO 81657. Point of Contact is Jeff Rex at (303) 501-4359.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 206: EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary: AIS and MET Data Link Services meeting.
The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.
The meeting will be held June 22, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC, 20036;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., appendix (2)), notice is hereby given for a RTCA Program Management Committee meeting. The agenda will include:
• Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
• Review/Approve Summaries:
• March 17, 2011, RTCA Paper No. 085-11/PMC-889.
• May 26, 2011, RTCA Paper No. 102-11/PMC-895.
• Publication Consideration/Approval.
• Final Draft, New Document,
• Final Draft, Revised DO-230B,
• Final Draft, Revised DO-315A,
• Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)—Status Review.
• Action Item Review:
• SC-225—Small and Medium Sized Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Discussion—Terms of Reference.
• SC-223—Airport Surface Wireless Communications—Discussion .
• SC-222—Inmarsat AMS(R)S—Discussion—Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference.
• Discussion:
• Aircraft Audio Systems and Equipment—Discussion—Possible New Special Committee to Revise DO-214.
• SC-214—Status, Terms of Reference.
• SC-213—Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)—Revised Terms of Reference.
• SC-205—Status, Document Delivery Dates and Terms of Reference.
• SC-203—Unmanned Aircraft Systems—Discussion—MASPS and MOPS Schedules.
• SC-159—Global Positioning System—Discussion—.
• NAC/Trajectory Operations—Discussion—Status.
• FAA Actions Taken on Previously Published Documents.
• Special Committees—Chairmen's Reports and Meeting Management.
• Other Business.
• Schedule for Committee Deliverables and Next Meeting Date.
• Adjourn.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
In notice document 2011-12742 appearing on page 30231 in the issue of Tuesday, May 24, 2011, make the following correction:
Beginning in the second line from the bottom of the first column and continuing to the second line in the second column, the Web site address should read as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In May 2011, there were six applications approved. This notice also includes information on three applications, approved in April 2011, inadvertently
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
Rehabilitation of taxiways H and J.
Terminal hold room expansion.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting building modification.
Rehabilitate runway 11R/29L lighting system.
Rehabilitate airfield markings.
Modify runway 11R/29L distance-to-go signs.
Reconstruct terminal ramp—design.
Reconstruct terminal ramp—construction.
Security equipment—fingerprinting machine (replacement).
PFC Administrative costs.
Design concourse B apron.
Construct concourse B apron (phase I)—bypass taxiways.
Design and construct runways 13/31, 7/24, and air cargo apron joint seal rehabilitation.
Airfield lighting upgrades.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle replacement.
Electrical substation and distribution system rehabilitation.
Rehabilitate internal circulation road (aircraft rescue and firefighting access).
Rehabilitate taxiways T and H.
Schematic design of concourse B.
Rehabilitate baggage information display screens.
Rehabilitate internal circulation road (tug road improvements).
PFC implementation and administrative costs.
Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District Office, (407) 812-6331.
(1) Air taxi/commercial operators that offer non-scheduled/on-demand air operations that enplane less than 2,500 passengers per year at Portland International Airport (PDX); and (2) commuters or small certificated air carriers that enplane less than 2,500 passengers per year at PDX.
South runway reconstruction (10R/28L).
Deicing project.
North runway reconstruction (10L/28R).
Dave Roberts, Seattle Airports District Office, (425) 227-2629.
Air taxi/commercial operators—nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
Lennox Schools soundproofing program.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PARTIALLY APPROVED FOR COLLECTION:
Lennox Schools soundproofing program (future sites).
Darlene Williams, Los Angeles Airports District Office, (310) 725-3625.
Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:
Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers, filing FAA Form 1800-31.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE:
Design and construction of conveyance and disposal system for aircraft deicing fluid.
Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:
Carriers required to file FAA Form 1800-31.
Noise mitigation program (65-69 DNL) phases 5 through 8.
Rehabilitate apron (design and construction) phase 2.
Update airport master plan.
Rehabilitate runway 15/33—phase 3.
Rehabilitate taxiways A and G—phase 3.
Rehabilitate taxiway T.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting land.
Remove obstructions in runway 15 runway protection zone.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
Acquire aircraft deicing equipment.
Acquire runway sweeper.
PFC program formulation.
Annual PFC administrative costs.
Jeffrey Breeden, Washington Airports District Office, (703) 661-1363.
Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
Acquisition of airport training system.
Loading bridge baggage delivery systems.
Airport access road lighting improvements.
Airfield fencing improvements.
Professional fees.
Construct service road.
Planning study—airport update.
Airfield lighting.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting truck.
Runway 13/31 safety area and visibility zone improvements.
Runway 4/22 safety area improvements. Construct taxiway K.
Gates.
Wildlife hazard assessments.
Security fencing.
Install terminal flight information display system.
Security improvements—finger print.
PFC application and administration fees.
Guillermo Villalobos, Texas Airports Development Office, (817) 222-5657.
Terminal expansion.
Loading bridges.
Access control.
Public seating.
Architectural services.
Gregory Sweeny, Chicago Airports District Office, (847) 294-7526.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus standard; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 15 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0125 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 15 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate
Mr. Bosma, age 56, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bosma understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bosma meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Drivers License from Illinois.
Mr. Combs, 48, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Combs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Combs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.
Ms. Farrell, 42, has had ITDM since 1998. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2011 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Farrell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Farrell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2011 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Gayles, 50, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gayles understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gayles meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Kentucky.
Mr. Hoffman, 63, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hoffman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hoffman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kohl, 28, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kohl understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kohl meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Lichtenberger, 61, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lichtenberger understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lichtenberger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Oklahoma.
Mr. Mulder, 31, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mulder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mulder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Nell, 23, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Sherwood, 54, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sherwood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sherwood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur license from Indiana.
Mr. Svedics, 35, has had ITDM since 1980. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Svedics understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Svedics meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Thomas, 51, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Walter, 59, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Walter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Wasko, 35, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wasko understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wasko meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable proliferative retinopathy in the right eye and stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy in the left eye. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Zaldana, 46, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zaldana understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zaldana meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from California.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus standard; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0144 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 23 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the statutes.
Mr. Anderson, age 59, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) safely. Mr. Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Wisconsin.
Mr. Bankier, 60, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bankier understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bankier meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Brewer, 26, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Burroughs, 44, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burroughs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burroughs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Vermont.
Mr. Carr, 43, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carr understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carr meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Flicek, 67, has had ITDM for 3 years. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Flicek understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Flicek meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Gasper, 41, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gasper understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gasper meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Gastelum, 59, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gastelum understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gastelum meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.
Mr. Grimmett, 45, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grimmett understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grimmett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Harper, 61, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harper understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harper meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
Mr. Ingram, 53, has had ITDM for greater than 10 years. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ingram understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Kennedy, 51, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kennedy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kennedy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.
Mr. Miller, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Pellegrino, 58, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pellegrino understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pellegrino meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Price, 65, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Price understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Price meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.
Mr. Pugliese, 55, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pugliese understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pugliese meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Radel, 37, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Radel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Radel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Stein, 79, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stein understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stein meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Tayts, 41, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tayts understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tayts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Tengs, 37, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
Mr. Thompson, 34, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thompson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thompson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Thorne, 59, has had ITDM since 1978. His endocrinologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thorne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thorne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy and stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy in his right and left eye, respectively. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Tiller, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tiller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tiller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 6 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective June 30, 2011. Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2009-0086, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs, (202)-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 6 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 6 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 6 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17743; 66 FR 33990; 68 FR 10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19596; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR 37891; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 34062; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 26471; 74 FR 28094). Each of these 6 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 6 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 27 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective June 26, 2011. Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs, (202)-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 27 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 27 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 27 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 66226; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 77066; 65 FR 78256; 64 FR 16517; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17743; 66 FR 17994; 66 FR 33990; 67 FR 57266; 68 FR 10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19596; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 25878; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 33937; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 28093; 72 FR 32705; 73 FR 60398 74 FR 26464; 74 FR 19270). Each of these 27 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by July 11, 2011.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 27 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0124 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from
Mr. Balli, age 49, has had retinal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic injury since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Balli has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Balli reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 52,000 miles. He holds a Class A Commercial Drivers License (CDL) from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Doan, 41, has had optic nerve hypoplasia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion vision and in the left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, “It is my medical opinion, that I find no reason from an ocular standpoint why he cannot continue to drive commercial vehicles.” Mr. Doan reported that he has driven straight trucks for 22 years, accumulating 4.4 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years, accumulating 330,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ellis, 54, has had cataract in his left eye since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye is 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, “He has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ellis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 72,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 34 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gamber, 62, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a retinal vein occlusion since 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, “Mr. Gamber has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Gamber reported that he has driven straight trucks for 43 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gartin, 47, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in the left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, “From these results, I believe Mr. Gartin does have sufficient visual acuity, visual field, and color discrimination to continue to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Gartin reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Giardine, 50, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in the left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, “I believe he has sufficient vision and field of vision to operate this vehicle for work.” Mr. Giardine reported that he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 62,400 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hall, 62, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due to trauma since 2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, “Mr. Hall, in my medical opinion has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle”. Mr. Hall reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12½ years, accumulating 337,500 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McGuire, 47, has had histoplasmosis in his right eye since 1997. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70 and in the left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. McGuire reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 26 years, accumulating 2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Morgan, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in the left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, “I, Dr. Benjamin L. Waldo, O.D. certify that I have the medical opinion that Mr. Morgan has sufficient vision to perform tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Morgan reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 weeks, accumulating 15,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Newberry, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, “Patient has sufficient vision to operate commercial vehicle”. Mr. Newberry reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 230,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Owens, 44, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained as a child. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in the left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted, “It is my opinion that Mr. Owens has excellent vision in spite of limitations in the left eye. He has an excellent driving record even with his CDL privileges.” Mr. Owens reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 190,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Shirk, 28, has had exotropia in his right eye due to a traumatic injury that occurred in 2003. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is light perception and in the left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, “In my opinion and based on the reported clean driving record, Peter seems to have sufficient visual field and visual acuity to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Shirk reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Stromwall, 51, has aphakia and amblyopia in his left eye due to cataract surgery at age 5. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye hand motion vision. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, “It is my opinion that Mr. Stromwall has sufficient vision to safely perform the tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Stromwall reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 165,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business July 11, 2011. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.
Federal Railroad Administration, (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 11, 2011.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On April 1, 2011, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden for each ICR being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of meeting; postponement.
FRA announced the first meeting of the Northeast Corridor Safety Committee, a Federal Advisory Committee mandated by Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) on June 6, 2011 (See 76 FR 32391). This meeting is postponed until further notice and will be rescheduled at a future date.
The meeting of the Northeast Corridor Safety Committee scheduled to commence on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, at 9 a.m., is hereby postponed and will be rescheduled at a future date.
To be rescheduled at a future date and location.
Mr. Larry Woolverton, Northeast Corridor Safety Committee Administrative Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6212; or Mr. Mark McKeon, Special Assistant to the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6350.
The Northeast Corridor Safety Committee is mandated by a statutory provision in Section 212 of the PRIIA (codified at 49 U.S.C. 24905(f)). This Committee is chartered by the Secretary of Transportation and is an official Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Title 5—Appendix.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Request for extension of information collection 2127-0634.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2011.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA-2011-0073 using any of the following methods:
Mr. Alan Block, Contracting Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W46-499, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Block's phone number is 202-366-6401 and his email address is
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA is requesting an extension of information collection 2127-0634:
In conducting the proposed telephone interviews, the interviewers would use computer-assisted telephone interviewing to reduce interview length and minimize recording errors. A Spanish-language translation and bilingual interviewers would be used to minimize language barriers to participation. The proposed survey would be anonymous; the survey would not collect any personal information that would allow anyone to identify respondents. Participant names would not be collected during the interview and the telephone number used to reach the respondent would be separated from the data record prior to its entry into the analytical database.
Nearly one-third of traffic fatalities each year occur in crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver (in which a driver or motorcycle rider had a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of .08 or greater). NHTSA has developed and demonstrated a range of countermeasures to address the problem. Yet while effective countermeasures have been identified, there remains a need for NHTSA to periodically update its information concerning the public's attitudes and behaviors regarding drinking and driving to determine if changes have occurred towards which current programs and program planning must adapt. NHTSA began measuring the driving age public's attitudes and behaviors regarding drinking and driving in 1991. The proposed survey, last administered in 2008, will collect data on topics included in the earlier surveys in the series, including: frequency of drinking and driving and of riding with a driver who has been drinking, ways to prevent alcohol-impaired driving, enforcement of drinking and driving laws, and understanding of BAC levels and legal limits.
NHTSA will use the findings from this proposed information collection to help focus current programs and activities to achieve the greatest benefit, to develop new programs to decrease the likelihood of alcohol-impaired driving, and to provide informational support to States, localities, and law enforcement agencies that will aid them in their efforts to reduce drinking and driving crashes and injuries.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
On May 23, 2011, Willamette & Pacific Railroad, Inc. (WPRR), and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) jointly filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 for WPRR to discontinue service over, and for UP to abandon, 17.86 miles of rail line in Benton County, OR.
Petitioners state that, based on information in UP's possession as the owner of the Line, the Line does not contain Federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in UP's possession will be made available to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by September 9, 2011.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the Line, the Line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for interim trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than June 30, 2011. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $250 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket Nos. AB 986 (Sub-No. 1X) and AB 33 (Sub-No. 257X), and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; (2) for WPRR — Eric M. Hocky, Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103; and (3) for UP — Mack H. Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, #1920, Chicago, IL 60606. Replies to the petition are due on or before June 30, 2011.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. A copy of the submission may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 11010, Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before July 11, 2011 to be assured of consideration.