Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
National Institute of Corrections
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that provide guidance regarding the allocation and apportionment of interest expense. These temporary regulations provide guidance concerning the allocation and apportionment of interest expense by corporations owning a 10 percent or greater interest in a partnership, as well as the allocation and apportionment of interest expense using the fair market value method. These temporary regulations also update the interest allocation regulations to conform to the statutory changes made by section 216 of the legislation commonly referred to as the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act (EJMAA), enacted on August 10, 2010, affecting the affiliation of certain foreign corporations for purposes of section 864(e). These regulations affect taxpayers that allocate and apportion interest expense. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-113903-10) set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject published elsewhere in this issue of the
Jeffrey L. Parry, (202) 622-3850 (not a toll-free call).
Section 1.861-9T(e) provides rules governing the apportionment of interest expense by a partner in a partnership. In general, § 1.861-9T(e) adopts an aggregate, or look-through, approach to apportioning a partner's distributive share of interest expense incurred by the partnership. Section 1.861-9T(e)(1) provides the general rule that a partner's distributive share of the interest expense of a partnership is considered related to all income-producing activities and assets of the partner. Similarly, § 1.861-9T(e)(2) requires that a corporate partner whose direct or indirect interest in the partnership is 10 percent or more apportion its distributive share of partnership interest expense by reference to the partner's assets, including the partner's pro rata share of the partnership's assets.
By contrast, limited partners (whether individual or corporate) and corporate general partners with a less-than-10-percent partnership interest are excepted from aggregate treatment. Under § 1.861-9T(e)(4)(i), such partners must directly allocate their distributive share of partnership interest expense to their distributive share of partnership gross income. In addition, for purposes of allocating other interest expense incurred directly by such a partner, § 1.861-9T(e)(4)(ii) provides that the relevant asset is the partner's interest in the partnership, and not the partner's share of the partnership assets. This approach for such minority partners avoids the potential administrative burden that an aggregate approach would impose on such minority partners.
These temporary regulations revise § 1.861-9T(e)(2) to clarify that a corporate partner with a 10 percent or greater interest in a partnership must allocate its direct interest expense to all of its assets, including its proportionate share of partnership assets. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that an aggregate approach for corporate partners with a 10 percent or greater interest in the partnership is appropriate and consistent with the aggregate approach applicable to apportioning such partner's distributive share of interest expense incurred by the partnership.
These temporary regulations also revise § 1.861-9T(e)(2) to provide that when a corporate partner with a 10 percent or greater interest in a partnership uses the tax book value or alternative tax book value method, and therefore must use the partnership's inside basis in its assets when allocating interest expense, the partnership's inside basis includes any section 734(b) adjustments and any section 743(b) adjustments of the corporate partner for this purpose. Section 1.861-9T(e)(3) is also revised to provide a similar rule for individual partners who are general partners or limited partners with a 10 percent or greater interest in the partnership.
Section 864(e)(2) requires that the allocation and apportionment of interest expense be made on the basis of assets and not gross income (the asset method). Under the asset method, interest expense is apportioned between (or among) statutory and residual groupings of gross income in proportion to the average total values of assets within each such grouping for the taxable year. For this purpose, taxpayers may elect to value assets based on their fair market value (the FMV method), tax book value, or alternative tax book value. §§ 1.861-8T(c)(2) and 1.861-9(i).
The temporary regulations set forth a multi-step methodology for determining the fair market value of a taxpayer's assets. Section 1.861-9T(h)(1) provides rules for determining the fair market value of the taxpayer's intangible assets. First, the taxpayer determines the aggregate value of assets that it and its subsidiaries own (Step 1); second, the taxpayer values its tangible assets, excluding any stock or indebtedness in a related person (Step 2); and third, it subtracts the amount determined in Step 2 from the amount determined in Step 1 to arrive at total intangible asset value (Step 3). The intangible assets owned by the taxpayer are then apportioned among the taxpayer's affiliates under § 1.861-9T(h)(2) on the basis of net income (Step 4).
Once a taxpayer has determined the fair market value of its intangible assets, those assets must be characterized as
The IRS and the Treasury Department have become aware that certain taxpayers are taking the position that the language of Step 2 of the FMV method, which requires related party debt to be excluded as an asset as part of the process for determining total intangible asset value, means that such debt also is not treated as an asset in the hands of the taxpayer for the broader purpose of applying the asset method. In addition, for purposes of valuing the stock in related persons under Step 6, some taxpayers are taking the position that those rules exclude related party debt as an asset (because of the reference in § 1.861-9T(h)(4) to § 1.861-9T(h)(1)(ii)), but permit reduction of the value of the stock of the related person obligor by the amount of the related party debt as a liability (because the language of § 1.861-9T(h)(4)(ii) does not limit the reduction for liabilities to unrelated party liabilities).
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that interpreting the regulations to require that the related party debt be taken into account as a liability for purposes of valuing stock in the related person without also treating the related party debt as an asset in the creditor's hands distorts the relative values of assets assigned to each statutory grouping. This result is contrary to the general principles of the § 1.861-9 regulations, which are based on the concept that interest expense must be apportioned on the basis of the value of all assets. Accordingly, these temporary regulations amend § 1.861-9T(h)(4) to reflect the fact that related party debt is an asset that must be taken into account whether held by the taxpayer or a related person.
These temporary regulations first revise § 1.861-9T(h)(4) by adding a new paragraph § 1.861-9T(h)(4)(i) to provide for the valuation of related party debt. Prior to its revision by these temporary regulations, § 1.861-9T(h)(4) provided for the valuation of the stock of a related person, but the regulations did not provide any explanation of how the related party debt is to be valued. As revised by these temporary regulations, § 1.861-9T(h)(4)(i) provides that a related party debt obligation held by a taxpayer or another person related to the taxpayer has a value equal to the amount of the liability of the obligor related person. These temporary regulations also revise § 1.861-9T(h)(4) by providing that the value of stock in a related person includes the taxpayer's pro rata share of related party debt held by the related person. Finally, these temporary regulations provide a new example illustrating the changes made to § 1.861-9T(h)(4).
These amendments make clear that related party debt is an asset in the hands of the creditor for purposes of applying the asset method and is included in the valuation of stock of a related person. Very broadly, these changes ensure that both the receivable and the payable sides of related party debt are included for valuation purposes under the FMV method, and that the value of each side is determined in a consistent manner. No inference is intended regarding the interpretation of prior regulations as a result of these modifications.
The interest expense of each member of an affiliated group is allocated and apportioned as if all members of such group were a single corporation. Section 864(e)(1). Prior to its amendment by the EJMAA, section 864(e)(5)(A) defined the term “affiliated group” by reference to the rules under section 1504 for determining whether corporations are eligible to file consolidated returns. The section 1504 rules generally exclude foreign corporations from an affiliated group. Section 1.861-11T(d)(6)(ii) provides that certain foreign corporations are nevertheless treated as affiliated corporations for purposes of allocating and apportioning interest expense if (1) at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of the corporation's outstanding stock is owned directly or indirectly by members of an affiliated group, and (2) more than 50 percent of the corporation's gross income for the taxable year is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States (effectively connected income).
In the case of a foreign corporation that is treated as an affiliated corporation for interest allocation and apportionment purposes, § 1.861-11T(d)(6)(ii) provides that the percentage of assets and income that is taken into account for purposes of applying the affiliated group interest apportionment rules depends on the percentage of the corporation's gross income that is effectively connected income. If 80 percent or more of the foreign corporation's gross income is effectively connected income, then all of the corporation's assets and interest expense are taken into account. If, instead, between 50 percent and 80 percent of the foreign corporation's gross income is effectively connected income, then only the corporation's assets that generate effectively connected income and a percentage of its interest expense equal to the percentage of its assets that generate effectively connected income are taken into account.
Section 864(e)(5)(A), as amended by the EJMAA, provides that a foreign corporation will be treated as a member of an affiliated group for interest allocation and apportionment purposes if (1) more than 50 percent of the gross income of such foreign corporation for the taxable year is effectively connected income, and (2) at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of all outstanding stock of such foreign corporation is owned directly or indirectly by members of the affiliated group. In such event, all of the qualifying foreign corporation's assets and interest expense are taken into account for purposes of applying the affiliated group interest apportionment rules. These temporary regulations revise § 1.861-11T(d)(6) to reflect these statutory changes.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
The principal author of these regulations is Jeffrey L. Parry of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2)
(3)
(h) * * *
(4)
(ii)
(A) The portion of the value of intangible assets of the taxpayer and related persons that is apportioned to such related person under paragraph (h)(2) of this section;
(B) The taxpayer's pro rata share of tangible assets held by the related person (as determined under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section);
(C) The taxpayer's pro rata share of debt obligations of any related person held by the related person (as valued under paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section); and
(D) The total value of stock in all related persons held by the related person as determined under this paragraph (h)(4).
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(k) * * * Paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) apply to taxable years beginning after January 17, 2012. See 26 CFR 1.861-9T(e)(2) and (3) (revised as of April 1, 2011) for rules applicable to taxable years beginning on or before January 17, 2012. Paragraph (h)(4) applies to taxable years ending on or after January 17, 2012. See 26 CFR 1.861-9T(h)(4) (revised as of April 1, 2011) for rules applicable to taxable years ending before January 17, 2012. * * *
(l)
(6) * * *
(ii) Any foreign corporation if more than 50 percent of the gross income of such foreign corporation for the taxable year is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States and at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of all outstanding stock of such foreign corporation is owned directly or indirectly by members of the affiliated group (determined with regard to this sentence).
(h)
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0789 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56706), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation, including recommendations for future rule improvements.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we did not receive comments on Rule 4565, and received comments on Rule 4570 from one party: Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE); letter dated and received October 14, 2011. The comments and our responses are summarized below.
In upholding EPA's approval of Arizona's AgBMP Rule as meeting the standard for Best Available Control Measures (BACM), as required by CAA section 189(b)(1)(B), the Ninth Circuit stated:
Petitioners do not challenge any particular practice adopted as BACM. [footnote omitted] Rather, petitioners contend that there is no reason why Arizona could not require farmers to implement more than one control measure in each category. Petitioners point out that because, in one sense, Arizona has already found these measures to be “feasible,” more than one measure must be implemented. As a matter of theory, petitioners are, of course, correct. Intuitively, it seems obvious to say that if one measure per category is good, two or more would be better. Petitioners' argument proves too much, however. By petitioners' logic, if two are better than one, three are better than two, and so forth. We have little doubt that if Arizona required all of these measures, it would achieve greater reductions than under its present plan.
Petitioners' argument would be compelling if the Act required a state to reduce its emissions to the maximum extent possible, regardless of cost. EPA, however, has concluded that “best available control measures” means the maximum degree of emissions reduction of PM-10 and PM-10 precursors from a source * * * which is determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, to be achievable for such source through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques for control of each such pollutant. Addendum, 59 Fed.Reg. at 42,010. Petitioners do not challenge this longstanding interpretation of the Act, and we cannot say that the interpretation is impermissible. See Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, 124 S.Ct. at 1001; cf. 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3) (similarly defining the term “best available control technology” for purposes of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program).
Regarding SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, the court ruled that a menu-based approach can meet the requirements of CAA 179(d)(2), which requires “additional measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe, including all
Petitioners argue that, under § 7509(d)(2), the District was required to implement all feasible measures to control PM-10 emissions without delay, because the San Joaquin Valley had failed to meet its attainment deadlines. Petitioners contend that allowing agricultural operators to choose one control option (among many) from each of a few categories fails to meet the “all feasible measures” standard * * *
The EPA offers an alternative reading of § 7509(d)(2). The EPA argues that the section provides that submitted revisions must contain additional measures, but that the only additional measures required are those the Administrator reasonably may choose to prescribe. The measures that the Administrator may reasonably prescribe, the EPA asserts, include all measures that can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological achievability, costs, and economic, health, and environmental effects * * *
Because § 7509(d)(2) is ambiguous and the EPA's statutory interpretation is reasonable, we hold that the EPA acted lawfully by not requiring implementation of “all feasible measures” into Rule 4550.
Similar to the Ninth Circuit's decisions regarding CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 179(d)(2), a menu-based approach can be consistent with CAA section 182(b)(2)'s RACT requirements. EPA has long interpreted RACT to encompass considerations of cost and feasibility.
Also, SJVUAPCD's revisions to Rule 4570 included changes that now make many mitigation measures mandatory, rather than optional as under the previous version of Rule 4570, in effect narrowing the range of options in the menus.
CRPE made a similar comment regarding EPA's proposed action on the
CRPE raised a similar argument in response to our action on the 2009 version of Rule 4570.
Regarding the first example, as we note above in our response to comment #3, the District's emission reduction estimate for feeding based on NRC guidelines was based on several research studies showing that changes in animals' diets reduce VOC emissions and that the 10% reduction was at the low end of the range of effectiveness seen in this research.
Regarding the second example, during past site visits, SJVUAPCD staff has observed feed lying more than three feet away from cows at dairies.
Consistent with CAA section 110(a) and relevant guidance, we reviewed Rule 4570 as we review other SIP submitted rules, to ensure that the rule language makes clear who must do what by when. EPA notes that it did evaluate the enforceability of Rule 4570 according to the criteria in the policy documents identified in our proposal, in particular, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 24, 1988 (the Bluebook), “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook), and “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency.” EPA found that Rule 4570 sets forth clear standards as well as adequate recordkeeping and monitoring and therefore meets the
National policy and precedent for implementing CAA section 110(a)'s enforceability requirement emphasizes that SIP requirements must be clear. See, for example, “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” summary of enforceability criteria (“Your review should ensure that the rules in question are clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the regulated sources,”)
EPA notes that the commenter did not identify any particular requirement that it believes to be lacking in clarity or specificity. In fact, Rule 4570 contains specific standards throughout its provisions. For example, the rule's applicability provision, Section 2.0, is unambiguously presented as, “The provisions of this rule shall apply to any Confined Animal Facility.” The rule's compliance time frame is also clearly set out in Section 8.0. Rule 4570's provisions imposing more particular requirements are also clearly set forth. For example, the Phase II Dairy silage menu, Table 4.1 B., requires owners and operators to select among mitigation measures that contain specific standards for the thickness of the tarps that cover the silage piles; the density of the silage piles themselves; and for managing the exposure of the silage piles. Similarly, the Phase II Dairy free stall barn menu, Table 4.1 D., requires owners and operators to select among mitigation measures that specify the width of paving for feedlanes, the frequency for clearing the feedlanes, and the type of allowable bedding materials. These are but a few examples of the specific standards set forth throughout Rule 4570.
Moreover, the record associated with the development of Rule 4570 shows efforts made by EPA and the District to ensure clarity in Rule 4570. For example, in a comment letter provided by EPA to the District regarding EPA's review of a draft version of Rule 4570, EPA recommended to the District that it revise three Phase II menus for dairies by adding definitions for at least six terms and including a specific frequency for vacuuming manure from freestall barns.
In addition to the rule's clarity and specificity, EPA considered the rule's other enforcement-related provisions. For example, sections 5.1.3 and 8.1 require each CAF owner/operator to submit, by April 21, 2011, an application for a construction or operating permit that includes a facility emission mitigation plan identifying the mitigation measures selected for the facility. Section 5.1.6 requires the District to act on complete applications within 6 months of receipt and to list the approved mitigation measures as permit conditions. Section 5.1.2 also specifies that initial permits to construct and operate for large CAFs will be subject to a 30-day public comment period.
In addition, sections 7.0-7.9 contain various recordkeeping requirements, including: Section 7.2.1, which requires owners and operators to maintain copies of all facility permits; section 7.2.2, which requires owners and operators to maintain quarterly records of the number of animals of each species and production group; and, section 7.2.3, which contains a broad requirement for owners and operators to “maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all applicable mitigation measures.” In addition, sections 7.3-7.8 contain specific recordkeeping requirements for various mitigation measures
With respect to the commenter's concern regarding discretion in the monitoring of lagoons (section 6.1), EPA notes that the “discretion” is reasonably limited in scope. Rule 4570 section 6.1 specifies that lagoons must be monitored “at least once every calendar quarter, with at least 30 days between monitoring tests.” Although section 6.1 does not specify the parameters that must be monitored, this issue is addressed by other provisions within the rule. For example, sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.5 require implementation of emission mitigation plans, which must be included as permit conditions in the CAF's operating and construction permits. For owners and operators implementing lagoons as a mitigation measure, section 6.1 contemplates that these plans and permits will identify the parameters approved by the District and EPA. Furthermore, owners and operators using lagoons as mitigation measures must also comply with source testing requirements set forth in sections 7.10.2—7.10.6.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP. This action permanently terminates all CAA sanction and FIP implications of our January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2079) limited disapproval of Rule 4570.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 19, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(351) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(388) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-500 Elan Orion, DG-500 Elan Trainer, DG-500/20 Elan, DG-500/22 Elan, DG-500M, and DG-500MB gliders. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as damage to the bulkhead of the glider's center of gravity (CG) tow hook that, if not detected and corrected, may lead to failure of the fiberglass structure during a winch launch. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 2, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal-Weg 2, 76646 Bruchsal, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 7251 3020140, fax: +49 (0) 7251 3020149; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2011-0209, dated October 26, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Occurrence of damage of the bulkhead of CG tow hook and its glued joints to fuselage shell was reported.
Investigation concluded that this damage may occur after wheel up landing.
Damage of bulkheads for CG tow hook of the sailplane or powered sailplane, if not detected and corrected, may lead to failure of glass fibre structure during a winch launch.
DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH developed and published Technical Note (TN) No 500/04 with the associated Working Instruction No 1 to detect and correct damaged CG tow hook bulkhead and its glued joints.
For the above-mentioned reasons, this AD requires a one-time inspection of the CG tow hook and its reinforcement.
The MCAI requires you to inspect the CG tow hook bulkhead for damage and reinforce the bulkhead. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued TN No 500/4, dated August 30, 2011; and Working Instruction No. 1, dated August 30, 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 another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 16 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,030 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $23,280 or $1,455 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(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 adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 2, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-500 Elan Orion, DG-500 Elan Trainer, DG-500/20 Elan, DG-500/22 Elan, DG-500M, and DG-500MB gliders, all serial numbers (S/N), certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.
This proposed AD was prompted by damage to the bulkhead of the glider's center of gravity (CG) tow hook that, if not detected and corrected, may lead to failure of the fiberglass structure during a winch launch. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011-0209, dated
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of the comment period.
We are revising an earlier NPRM for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500 Elan series sailplanes and Models DG-500M and DG-500MB powered sailplanes. 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 incorrect re-installation of the rear cockpit securing rope for the headrest of the rear seat during maintenance, which could cause the rear seat to interfere with the control stick of the sailplane. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 2, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal-Weg 2, 76646 Bruchsal, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 7251 3020140; fax: +49 (0) 7251 3020149; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the specified products, which was published in the
Since that NPRM (76 FR 76330, December 7, 2011) was issued, we determined that all affected Model DG-500 Elan sailplanes were not included in the Applicability section.
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19, 2011, and Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 3, dated September 13, 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 another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier NPRM (76 FR 76330, December 7, 2011). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to extend the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 16 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,808, or $1,300.50 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $42.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(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 adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 2, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-500 Elan Orion, DG-500 Elan Trainer, DG-500/20 Elan, and DG-500/22 Elan sailplanes and Models DG-500M and DG-500MB powered sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
(i) Equipped with a headrest on the rear seat; and
(ii) Certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 25: Equipment/Furnishing.
This AD was prompted by 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 incorrect re-installation of the rear cockpit securing rope for the headrest of the rear seat during maintenance. We are issuing this AD to correct the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope, which if too long, could cause the rear seat to interfere with the control stick of the sailplane and could result in loss of control of the sailplane.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rear cockpit headrest securing rope to determine the length. Do the inspection as specified in Instruction No. 2 of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19, 2011.
(i) If the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope is more than 450 millimeters (mm) or less than 400 mm, before further flight, adjust the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope to a length between 400 mm and 450 mm as shown in Sketch 2 of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 3, dated September 13, 2011. After doing the adjustment, do the action required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
(ii) If the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope is between 400 mm and 450 mm, do the action required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
(2) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a snap hook. Do the replacement following DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 3, dated September 13, 2011, as specified in Instruction No. 3 of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19, 2011.
(3) Replacement of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a snap hook done before the effective date of this AD following DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 2, is considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
(4) Although the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) MCAI and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19, 2011, allows the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to be done by a pilot-owner, the U.S. regulatory system requires all actions required by this AD be done by a certified mechanic.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2011-0191, dated September 30, 2011; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19, 2011; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 3, dated September 13, 2011, for related information. For service information related to this AD, contact DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal-Weg 2, 76646 Bruchsal, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 7251 3020140; fax: +49 (0) 7251 3020149; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes. 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 loose elevator and rudder hinge bolts caused by incorrect torquing and locking of the bolts could lead to in-flight failure of the elevator or rudder attachment. If not corrected, this failure could result in loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 2, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65 80; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 65 76; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2011-0230, dated December 9, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
A case of loss of elevator and rudder hinge bolts on a PC-6 aeroplane has been reported.
The results of the investigations indicate that the elevator and rudder hinge bolt loss are suspected to have been caused by an incorrect torque and locking of the bolts.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight failure of the elevator or rudder attachment, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires the installation of a new locking screw and the modification of the installation of the hinge bolt.
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 55-001, Rev. No. 1, dated November 25, 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 another country, and is approved for operation
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 50 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $26,250, or $525 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(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 adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 2, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-Hl, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-Hl, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-Hl, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/Bl-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/Cl-H2 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN), and MSN 2001 through 2092, certificated in any category. These airplanes are also identified as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Industries PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6 airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizer.
This AD was prompted by loose elevator and rudder hinge bolts caused by incorrect torquing and locking of the bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight failure of the elevator or rudder attachment, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2011-0230, dated December 9, 2011, and Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing.
In the Rules and Regulations section in this issue of the
Written or electronic comments must be received by March 13, 2012. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for April 3, 2012, at 10 a.m. must be received by March 13, 2012.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-113903-10), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO 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-113903-10), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20044, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Jeffrey L. Parry, (202) 622-3850; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Oluwfunmilayo 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 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, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have 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 electronic or written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for April 3, 2012, in the IRS auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit electronic or written comments by March 13, 2012, and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by March 13, 2012. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
The principal author of these regulations is Jeffrey L. Parry of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(e) * * *
(2) and (3) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.861-9(e)(2) and § 1.861-9(e)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.861-9T(e)(2) and § 1.861-9T(e)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(h) * * *
(4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.861-9(h)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.861-9T(h)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(k) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.861-9(k) is the same as the text of § 1.861-9T(k) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(d) * * *
(6)(ii) [The text of proposed § 1.861-11(d)(6)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.861-11T(d)(6)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(h) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.861-11(h) is the same as the text of § 1.861-11T(h) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on two mutually exclusive proposals that were previously being considered in MB Docket No. 08-85. That proceeding was terminated without considering these proposals. The first proposal, RM-11517, filed by Rocket Radio, Inc., proposes the allotment of FM Channel 287C2 at Williams, Arizona, as the community's second local service; the substitution of Channel 228C2 for vacant Channel 286C2 at Ehrenberg, Arizona; and the substitution of Channel 281C for vacant Channel 247C at First Mesa, Arizona. Additionally, to facilitate the Williams allotment, we issue an Order to Show Cause to Univision Radio License Corporation as to why its license for Station KHOV-FM, Wickenburg, Arizona, should not be changed from Channel 287C2 to Channel 286C2; and to Grenax Broadcasting II, LLC as to why its license for Station KBTK(FM), Kachina Village, Arizona, should not be modified from Channel 286C2 to Channel 246C2.
Comments must be filed on or before February 20, 2012, and reply comments on or before March 6, 2012.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Erwin G. Krasnow, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer, 1000 Potomac Street NW., Fifth Floor, Flour Mill Building, Washington, DC 20007-3501 (Counsel to Rocket Radio, Inc.); and Scott R. Flick, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037-1128 (Counsel to Univision Radio License Corporation).
Rolanda F. Smith or Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2054.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
The second proposal, RM-11518, involves a petition for rule making and hybrid application, filed by Univision Radio License Corporation, licensee of Station KHOV-FM, Wickenburg, Arizona. The application requests the upgrade of Station KHOV-FM, Wickenburg, from Channel 287C2 to Channel 286C0.
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is amended at Ehrenberg by removing Channel 286C2 and adding Channel 228C2 in its place; at First Mesa by removing Channel 247C and adding Channel 281C and by adding Williams, Channel 287C2.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Alatron Corporation, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 228A at Pike Road, Alabama, as its second local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 228A can be allotted to Pike Road consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Rules with a site restriction 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) south of the community. The reference coordinates are 32-14-29 NL and 86-06-40 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before February 20, 2012, and reply comments on or before March 6, 2012.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Robert E. Williams, President, Alatron Corporation, Inc., P.O. Box 110, Clanton, Alabama 35046.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2054.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 11-206, adopted December 22, 2011, and released December 23, 2011. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-(800) 378-3160 or via email
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Alabama, is amended by adding Pike Road, Channel No. 228A.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; dismissal.
The Audio Division dismisses a Petition for Rule Making filed by Michael Cusinato proposing the allotment of FM Channel 287B1 at Needles, California, as the community's fourth local transmission service, because no comments were received expressing an interest in the proposed allotment.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith or Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2054.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Although the
Radio.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the March 22, 2011, proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Pacific Coast WSP) (
We will consider comments received on or before February 16, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Nancy Finley, Field Supervisor or Jim Watkins, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone (707) 822-7201; facsimile (707) 822-8411. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP that was published in the
(1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the designation of “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) Areas that provide habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP that we did not discuss in the proposed revised critical habitat rule, and
(b) Areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species which may require special management considerations or protection and that we should include in the designation, and reason(s) why.
(3) Specific information on our proposed revised designation of back-dune systems and other habitats in an attempt to offset the anticipated effects of sea-level rise associated with climate change.
(4) Specific information on the Pacific Coast WSP, habitat conditions, and the presence of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species at any of the critical habitat units proposed in this revised rule (see Critical Habitat Units section and previous rules (64 FR 68508, December 7, 1999; 70 FR 56970, September 29, 2005; 76 FR 16046, March 22, 2011)).
(5) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be refined to more closely circumscribe the areas
(6) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed revised designation that are subject to these impacts.
(7) Any information regarding the areas exempted from the proposed revised rule or whether any specific areas being proposed as revised critical habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any particular area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, including Tribal lands, within the proposed revised designation.
(8) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
(9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat.
(10) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
(11) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed revised critical habitat designation.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 16046) during the initial comment period from March 22, 2011, to May 23, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the taxonomic name change and designation of critical habitat for Pacific Coast WSP in this document. For more background information concerning the Pacific Coast WSP, refer to the proposed revised designation of critical habitat published in the
On March 22, 2011, we published a proposed rule to revise the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP (76 FR 16046). We proposed to designate approximately 28,261 acres (ac) (11,436 hectares (ha)) in 68 units located in Washington, Oregon, and California as critical habitat. That proposal opened a 60-day comment period, ending May 23, 2011. In this document we are proposing to revise the boundaries to Unit CA 46 based on new information (see Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat below). We will submit for publication in the
We are making a technical correction to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reflect our acceptance of a taxonomic and nomenclatural change of western snowy plover to
In 2009, Clemens Küpper (Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK); Tamás Székely (Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK); and Terry Burke (Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK), submitted a proposal to the American Ornithologist's Union (AOU)—the recognized body on ornithological naming and scientific nomenclature (AOU 2010A, pp. 145-146). The proposal presented information to split the Kentish plover from the snowy plover and adopt Kentish plover for Palaearctic populations (zoogeographical region consisting of Europe, Africa north of the Sahara, and most of Asia north of the Himalayas) and change the scientific name of the snowy plover in Central and North America to
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed revised rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies funding, authorizing, permitting, or proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate and revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of the Interior may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the Pacific Coast WSP and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for Pacific Coast WSP due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Federal agencies.
The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed revised critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP. The DEA separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to “without critical habitat” and “with critical habitat” scenarios. The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to the Pacific Coast WSP (
The DEA evaluates the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. The analysis focuses on reasonably foreseeable incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation, or those impacts not expected to occur absent critical habitat designation. Forecasted impacts are based on the planning periods for potentially affected projects and look out over a 20-year time horizon (through 2031). The DEA considers economic impacts of Pacific Coast WSP conservation efforts on the following activities: (1) Recreation; (2) development; (3) gravel mining; (4) military activities; and (5) habitat and species management.
Due to strong existing protections (include symbolic fencing, nest exclosures, signage, driving restrictions, and mechanized beach cleaning restrictions) for the Pacific Coast WSP, the direct incremental impacts quantified in the DEA are limited to the administrative cost of considering adverse modification during section 7 consultation with the Service as well as the additional effort necessary to include analysis of critical habitat in three future Habitat Conservation Plans
The analysis also identifies three activities that may experience indirect incremental impacts of the proposed revised critical habitat designation: Recreation at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) (Unit CA 31), development of the Sterling/McDonald site (Unit CA 22), and development of the Security National Guaranty (SNG) site (Unit CA 22). Indirect impacts resulting from future litigation or increased scrutiny from State agencies may include prohibiting off-highway-vehicle use at Oceano Dunes SVRA and denial of development permits for the Sterling/McDonald and SNG sites. Due to uncertainty surrounding the likelihood and extent of such indirect impacts, the data necessary to quantify these impacts are unavailable. Therefore, these indirect incremental impacts are discussed qualitatively in the DEA (IEc 2011, p. 4-2).
In the March 22, 2011, proposed revised designation of critical habitat (76 FR 16046), we did not consider Vandenberg Air Force Base for exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because they had not yet completed a Service-approved INRMP. On April 14, 2011, VAFB completed and we approved the INRMP for VAFB as part of the requirements of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) (for a full discussion of the Sikes Act, see the Exemptions section of the March 22, 2011, proposed revision to critical habitat (76 FR 16046)). The VAFB INRMP provides for the conservation, management, and stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. The INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Because the INRMP was not finalized and approved prior to the March 22, 2011, proposed revised critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP (76 FR 16046), we did not exempt these areas prior to their proposal. We will review the INRMP and will determine in our final designation of critical habitat if the plan provides a benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP in those areas covered by the INRMP that we had determined to be essential to and for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. If it does, we will exempt those areas covered by the INRMP from the final designation under the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) and section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed revised designation, the changes contained in this NOA, and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed revised designation or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
In this document, we are making revisions to the proposed revised critical habitat as identified and described in the proposed rule that we published in the
We also received comments and new information from California State Parks and a species expert indicating that we should reevaluate the proposed boundaries of subunit CA 46E at Bolsa Chica State Beach because the area no longer contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and is no longer being used for wintering by the Pacific Coast WSP and has not been used in the last 4 years (D. Prior, California State Parks, pers. comm. 2011; P. Knapp, pers. comm. 2011). The information provided indicated that areas north of the proposal in subunit CA 46E at Bolsa Chica State Beach are being used by the Pacific Coast WSP as a wintering habitat and that we should reevaluate the proposed boundaries of beach areas in Unit CA 46 (Prior, pers. comm. 2011; Knapp, pers. comm. 2011). We have reviewed the new information and have determined it appropriate to adjust our proposed revised designation of Unit CA 46.
The purpose of the revisions described below is to better delineate the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and to ensure that all areas proposed are consistent with the criteria outlined in the proposed revised rule (see “Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat” section in the proposed revised critical habitat designation (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011)). The areas added to the proposed unit are within the geographical area that was occupied by the species at the time it was listed and contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. A revised map is included in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of this document. Below, we briefly describe the changes made to Unit CA 46. As a result of these revisions, the naming convention for the subunits CA 46A-E will change and an additional subunit (CA 46F) will be added. Also as a result of these revisions, the total area proposed for designation as critical habitat in Unit CA 46 is 568 ac (230 ha), an increase of 50 ac (20 ha). The change increases the total amount of proposed revised critical habitat to 30,497 ac (12,342 ha) (see Table 3 below).
Through this notice, we propose to exchange the naming conventions between subunits CA 46A and 46E so that the Bolsa Chica State Beach will now be part of subunit CA 46A and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve will include subunits CA 46B-F. As revised here, the subunits in Bolsa Chica State Beach and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are located east of the Pacific Coast Highway, in Orange County, California. As a result of this revision, the total area proposed for designation as critical habitat at Bolsa Chica State Beach (now designated as subunit CA 46A) is 93 ac (38 ha); and the total area for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve subunits (now designated as subunits CA 46B-46F) is 475 ac (192 ha). These subunits are entirely owned by the State of California.
Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve contains significant nesting and foraging areas. This location supported 47 breeding adult Pacific Coast WSP in 2009 (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 8). All subunits at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve were occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied and annually support one of the largest breeding populations of Pacific Coast WSP in the region. The Recovery Plan for Pacific Coast WSP states that this location contributes to the conservation goal for the region by providing a management potential of 70 breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix B). This location also supported an average wintering flock of 14 Pacific Coast WSP from 2003 through 2010 (Service unpublished data). In the proposed revised rule, we incorrectly stated that this reserve is an abandoned oil field. This reserve is in fact an active oil field that underwent significant reconstruction and restoration between 2004 and 2006, including the addition of three new nest sites and a new ocean inlet that allows the water level to rise and fall resembling the irregular semi-diurnal tidal range of southern California's ocean waters (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 1). Including these occupied areas for breeding, foraging, and dispersal is consistent with our criteria used to identify critical habitat, as outlined in the proposed rule (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011). No changes were made to subunits CA 46B or CA 46D. Please see the proposed revised critical habitat for a description of these subunits (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011).
Through this notice, the proposed revised designation's subunit CA 46E is renamed as subunit CA 46A. After further analysis and review of comments received on the proposed revised designation, we have adjusted the boundary of the 8 ac (3 ha) of beach that was included in the proposed rule because the area no longer contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and has not supported Pacific Coast WSP for the past 4 years (Prior, pers. comm. 2011). The subunit as revised here consists of sandy beach habitat north of the critical habitat unit proposed in March 2011, and extends to just south of the Sunset Beach area near Warner Avenue adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. As a result of the revision reflected here, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46A is 93 ac (38 ha), an increase of 85 ac (35 ha) from what was proposed for Bolsa Chica State Beach in the proposed revised designation. This subunit is owned entirely by the State of California. The revised subunit CA 46A was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates for foraging, and because it supports an average wintering flock of 27 Pacific Coast WSP (Service unpublished data 2003-2010) in a location with high-quality breeding habitat. Subunit CA 46A may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from recreational disturbance and beach raking as discussed for this subunit in the March 2011 proposed revised rule. Additionally, adding occupied areas for wintering, foraging, and dispersal is consistent with our criteria used to identify critical habitat, as outlined in the proposed revised rule (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011).
We revised subunit CA 46C to include additional areas containing the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species for breeding, foraging, and dispersal that were not captured in the proposed revised rule. This addition is based on information received during the public comment period that indicates that these areas include year-round foraging habitat in extensive mudflats and additional nesting areas for Pacific Coast WSP to expand into. This unit was occupied at the time of listing. This location contains the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, including tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. As a result of this revision, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46C is 222 ac (90 ha), an increase of 201 ac (81 ha) from the proposed rule. This location contains tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds and nesting islands that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation encroachment in nesting and foraging areas and predation of chicks and eggs.
Here, we rename the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve areas that were proposed as subunit CA 46A in the proposed revised rule to subunit CA 46E and remove the areas that do not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This area was occupied at the time of listing. This revised subunit CA 46E is reduced in size to more accurately represent the nesting and foraging areas used by Pacific Coast WSP. We removed almost all of the Muted Tidal Basin area from subunit 46E because this area does not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Pacific Coast WSP. We have adjusted the boundary in the Future Full Tidal Basin to represent areas used for nesting and foraging. As a result of this revision, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46E is 247 ac (100 ha), a decrease of 237 ac (96 ha) from what was proposed as subunit CA 46A in the proposed rule. This revised location contains tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds and nesting islands that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation encroachment in nesting and
We add one subunit (CA 46F) to represent the single nesting and foraging area utilized by Pacific Coast WSP in the Muted Tidal Basin (Nest Site 2). This area was occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This location contains tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds and nesting islands that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation encroachment in nesting and foraging areas and predation of chicks and eggs. As a result of this addition, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46F is 2 ac (1 ha).
In addition to the unit changes outlined above, we are also correcting land ownership acreage numbers identified in Table 3 of the March 22, 2011, proposed revised rule (76 FR 16046). The corrected Table 3 with changes to Unit CA-46 is below. Also, in the proposed revised rule we incorrectly stated that no Department of Defense lands were within the proposed revised designation. Approximately 1,084 ac (439 ha) have been identified on VAFB in units CA-32 and CA-33. On April 14, 2011, we approved the INRMP for VAFB and have determined that the plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. We have now reviewed and approved the VAFB INRMP and will recommend that the Secretary exempt the areas determined to be essential to and for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP from the final designation under the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) and section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
In our March 22, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 16046), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed revised rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities
To determine if the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as development, recreation, habitat management or restoration activities (IEc 2011, p. A-5). In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Pacific Coast WSP is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed revised critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. The Service and the action agency are the only entities with direct compliance costs associated with this proposed revised critical habitat designation, although small entities may participate in section 7 consultation as a third party. It is, therefore, possible that the small entities may spend additional time considering critical habitat during section 7 consultation for the Pacific Coast WSP. The DEA indicates that the incremental impacts potentially incurred by small entities are limited to two private developers working through the Sand City Redevelopment Agency at the Sterling-McDonald site (Unit CA 22) and Security National Guaranty (SNG) (Unit CA 22). The indirect incremental impacts resulting from development of the Sterling-McDonald and the Security National Guaranty (SNG) site (Unit CA 22) result from potential denial of development permits for the Sterling-McDonald and SNG sites by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Both projects have been in planning for numerous years, and previous applications for development permits from the CCC have been denied due to being in noncompliance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The projects have been subsequently modified to decrease impacts to coastal resources, and proponents are again seeking CCC approval. Because the project modifications have not yet been reviewed by the CCC, there is still some uncertainty as to whether the projects will be allowed to move forward at this time and thus result in the potential incremental impacts identified in the DEA.
The Sterling-McDonald site plan calls for a 342 unit coastal resort. The project has been in planning since the 1990s and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is currently under development on the project's current design. Project proponents expect the EIR to be completed in 2012.
The 39-ac (16-ha) SNG site is also planned for a mixed-use resort and will include up to 341 units. The proposed project has completed an EIR under CEQA and as part of local and State permitting processes, SNG has prepared a detailed habitat protection plan (HPP) for the site. The HPP evaluates and proposes mitigation for potential impacts to biological resources, including the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. Two other federally listed species occur at the project site including the endangered Smith's blue butterfly (
The process for the CCC to issue permits for coastal development projects involves the development of Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) by cities and counties. LCPs are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the CCC. After an LCP has been certified by the CCC to be in compliance with the Coastal Act requirements, the coastal permitting authority over most new development is transferred to the local government. As of 2008, approximately 72 percent of the LCPs have been certified by the CCC, representing close to 90 percent of the geographic area of the coastal zone. Unit CA-22 for the Pacific Coast WSP falls within the City of Sand City LCP which includes the coastal areas near the City of Sand City south to Bay Avenue in Monterey County, California. Since 2004, when the City of Sand City LCP was approved by the CCC, the City of Sand City issued a total of 107 permits for development projects or other construction activity affecting coastal resources within the LCP (CCC 2010, pp. Part 3 16-17). The two small businesses represent less than 2 percent of the total number of actions permitted regionally by the City of Sand City and certified by the CCC.
Due to the uncertainty of the status of the two projects, the extent of their indirect impacts, and the unavailability of data necessary to quantify impacts, the DEA does not quantify, but qualitatively discusses, these potential indirect impacts (IEc 2011, p. A-5). Please refer to the DEA of the proposed revised critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
Our analysis constitutes an evaluation of not only potentially directly affected parties, but those also potentially indirectly affected. Under the RFA and following recent case law, we are only required to evaluate the direct effects of a regulation to determine compliance. Because the regulatory effect of critical habitat is through section 7 of the Act which applies only to Federal agencies, we have determined that only Federal agencies are directly affected by this rulemaking. Other entities, such as small businesses, are only indirectly affected. However, to better understand the potential effects of a designation of
Following our evaluation of potential effects to small business entities from this rulemaking, we do not believe that the two small businesses or less than 2 percent of the small businesses in the affected sector represents a substantial number. However, we recognize that the potential effects to these small businesses may be significant due to not quantifying the potential economic impacts. We will further evaluate the potential effects to these small businesses as we develop our final rulemaking.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed revised designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. We have identified two small entities that may be impacted by the proposed revised critical habitat designation. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed revised critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 76 FR 16046, March 22, 2011, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for “Plover, western snowy” under “BIRDS” in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
(h) * * *
3. Amend § 17.95(b), in the entry for “Western Snowy Plover (
(b)
Western Snowy Plover (
(82) Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica State Beach, Orange County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica State Beach, Orange County, California]
(ii)
(83) Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California]
(ii)
(84) Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California]
(ii)
(85) Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California]
(ii)
(86) Subunit CA 46E: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California]
(ii)
(87) Subunit CA 46F: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Subunit CA 46F: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County, California]
(ii)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period and announcement of public hearing.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on our September 27, 2011, revised proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog (
•
•
The public informational session and hearing will be held at Gulfport High School (auditorium), 100 Perry Street, Gulfport, Mississippi 39507.
People needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Stephen Ricks, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, at (601) 321-1122, as soon as possible (see
Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by telephone (601) 321-1122; facsimile (505) 346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the revised proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in this document.
On September 27, 2011, we published a revised proposed rule (76 FR 59774) to designate critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog, and announced the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) for the revised proposed critical habitat designation. For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the Mississippi gopher frog, please refer to the revised proposed rule. In response to comments we received during the public comment period that opened on September 27, 2011 and closed on November 28, 2011, we have decided to allow the public more time to submit comments and to hold an informational session and public hearing (as described above), and to modify the revised proposed rule as described below.
As the starting point for delineating Mississippi gopher frog critical habitat in our revised proposed rule (76 FR 59774), we used the median value of all data available to us on maximum distance movements of gopher frogs between their breeding ponds and upland habitats. However, in that revised proposed rule, we stated we used the mean value instead of the median. Of the two peer reviewers that commented during the comment period that closed on November 28, 2011, on whether the median or the mean of the maximum movement distances is most appropriate to use in the critical habitat delineation, one reviewer preferred the median and the other preferred the mean.
Determining the optimum value to use in calculating the amount of habitat necessary for Mississippi gopher frog conservation is difficult, in part because the data were collected from different States, in studies with different objectives, and in habitat of differing quality. The maximum distance gopher frogs moved varied considerably among studies. At the low end of the range is a value of 240 meters (m) (787 feet (ft)) from one Mississippi gopher frog study, and at the upper end of the range is 3,500 m (11,483 ft) for a gopher frog study in North Carolina.
At the suggestion of one peer reviewer, we amended our methodology by combining all movement data from different studies conducted at the same site (Richter
Table 1. Movement of gopher frogs between wetland and upland sites*. Distance data represent the maximum straight line distance between the middle (except where noted) of a breeding pond and upland burrow sites for each gopher frog study. The gopher
As a result of the changes described above, we propose to amend the value used in constructing the area of critical habitat around a breeding pond from 600 m (1,969 ft) to 571 m (1,873 ft). As set forth in the revised proposed rule, this value would be increased by 50 m (164 ft) to provide a buffer to minimize the edge effects of the surrounding land use. Therefore, we are providing notice to the public that we are revising our proposed critical habitat delineation around the ponds by using a radius of 621 m (2,037 ft), rather than the 650 m (2,133 ft) used in our September 27, 2011, revised proposed rule (76 FR 59774). Given the limited amount of data available to us on the movements of gopher frogs, we are requesting submission of any additional data not already in our possession and are also requesting comments on our revised methodology as described above. Because the changes described above will result in very minor changes to the mapping of the units, we have not revised the maps for this document. However, the revised maps will be available for closer inspection at the field office, on
If we finalize the rule using the methodology described above, we would designate approximately 2,646 hectares (ha) (6,538 acres (ac)) as critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in 12 units, 3 of which are divided into 2 subunits each. This would be a reduction of 193 ha (477 ac) from the September 27, 2011, revised proposed rule (2,839 ha (7,015 ac)). The critical habitat would be located within St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties, Mississippi. The final decision on whether to designate the critical habitat, as proposed, will be based on the best scientific data available, including information obtained during the comment period reopened by this document and at the upcoming public informational session and public hearing (see
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period for the revised proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog that was published in the
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Mississippi gopher frog habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Mississippi gopher frog and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area (especially Unit 1 in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana) that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designation of critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
(8) The appropriateness of the taxonomic name change of the Mississippi gopher frog from
(9) The appropriateness of the methodology used for delineating the proposed critical habitat (including any
If you previously submitted comments or information on the revised proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination will take into consideration all written comments and public testimony from the public hearing mentioned above.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the revised proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the revised proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The primary author of this notice is the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, Region 4, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice.
The Administrative Conference of the United States adopted four recommendations at its Fifty-fifth Plenary Session. The appended recommendations address incorporation by reference, international regulatory cooperation, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and agency innovations in e-rulemaking.
For Recommendations 2011-5 and 2011-8, Emily Schleicher Bremer, Attorney Advisor, and for Recommendations 2011-6 and 2011-7, Reeve T. Bull, Attorney Advisor. For all four recommendations the address and phone number is: Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone (202) 480-2080.
The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations for improvements to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, see
At its Fifty-fifth Plenary Session, held December 8-9, 2011, the Assembly of the Conference adopted four recommendations. Recommendation 2011-5, “Incorporation by Reference,” addresses legal and policy issues related to agencies' incorporation by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations of standards or other materials that have been published elsewhere. Agencies have promulgated thousands of regulations that incorporate by reference standards published elsewhere. The practice raises common issues that individual agencies deal with differently. The recommendation consolidates the dispersed knowledge of affected agencies, identifies best practices, and recommends ways to improve the process.
Recommendation 2011-6, “International Regulatory Cooperation,” addresses how U.S. regulators can interact with foreign authorities to accomplish their domestic regulatory missions and eliminate unnecessary non-tariff barriers to trade. The project updates Administrative Conference Recommendation 91-1, “Federal Agency Cooperation with Foreign Government Regulators.” The recommendation includes proposals for enhanced cooperation and information gathering, more efficient deployment of limited resources, and better information exchanges.
Recommendation 2011-7, “The Federal Advisory Committee Act—Issues and Proposed Reforms,” addresses the issue of whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) is functioning effectively and efficiently almost 40 years after its enactment. The recommendation offers three sets of proposed revisions to the existing FACA regime to make the law more relevant in light of agency experience with FACA and 21st century technologies. Specifically, the recommendation includes proposals designed to clarify the scope of FACA and its implementing regulations, alleviate certain procedural burdens associated with the existing regime, and promote “best practices” aimed at enhancing the transparency and objectivity of the advisory committee process.
Recommendation 2011-8, “Agency Innovations in E-Rulemaking,” addresses how Federal agency rulemaking can be improved by better use of Internet-based technologies. The recommendation proposes ways agencies can make rulemaking information, including open dockets, comment policies, and materials from completed rulemakings, more accessible electronically. The recommendation also addresses the issue of improving e-rulemaking participation by those who have historically faced barriers to access, including non-English speakers, users of low-bandwidth Internet connections, and individuals with disabilities.
The Appendix (below) sets forth the full text of these four recommendations. The Conference will transmit them to affected agencies and to appropriate committees of the United States Congress. The recommendations are not binding, so the relevant agencies, the Congress, and the courts will make decisions on their implementation.
The Conference based these recommendations on research reports that it has posted at:
Incorporation by reference allows agencies to comply with the requirement of publishing rules in the
The Conference has conducted a study of agency experience with the practice of incorporation by reference, including the use of voluntary consensus standards. The study focused on three issues agencies frequently confront when incorporating by reference: (1) Ensuring materials incorporated by reference are reasonably available to regulated and other interested parties; (2) updating regulations that incorporate by reference; and (3) navigating procedural requirements and resolving drafting difficulties when incorporating by reference. Agencies have used a variety of approaches to address these issues within the constraints of federal law and regulatory policy. This recommendation identifies and encourages those approaches that have proven most successful.
This recommendation does not attempt to resolve the questions of copyright law applicable to materials incorporated by reference into federal regulations. Rather, the recommendation encourages agencies to take steps to promote the availability of incorporated materials within the framework of existing law. This effort is consistent with the National Science and Technology Council's acknowledgment that “the text of standards and associated documents should be available to all interested parties on a reasonable basis, which may include monetary compensation where appropriate.”
1. Agencies considering incorporating material by reference should ensure that the material will be reasonably available both to regulated and other interested parties.
2. If an agency incorporates by reference material that is not copyrighted or subject to other legal protection, the agency should make that material available electronically in a location where regulated and other interested parties will be able to find it easily.
3. When an agency is considering incorporating copyrighted material by reference, the agency should work with the copyright owner to ensure the material will be reasonably available to regulated and other interested parties both during rulemaking and following promulgation.
(a) Agencies should request owners of copyright in incorporated material to consent to its free publication, and, if such consent is given, make the material available as in paragraph (2), above.
(b) If copyright owners do not consent to free publication of incorporated materials, agencies should work with them and, through the use of technological solutions, low-cost publication, or other appropriate means, promote the availability of the materials while respecting the copyright owner's interest in protecting its intellectual property.
(c) If more than one standard is available to meet the agency's need, it should consider the availability of the standards as one factor in determining which standard to use.
4. In deciding whether to incorporate a particular copyrighted material by reference, and in working with a copyright owner to ensure the material is reasonably available, an agency should consider:
(a) The stage of the regulatory proceedings, because access may be necessary during
(b) The need for access to achieve agency policy or to subject the effectiveness of agency programs to public scrutiny;
(c) The cost to regulated and other interested parties to obtain a copy of the material, including the cumulative cost to obtain incorporated material that itself incorporates further materials; and
(d) The types of parties that need access to the incorporated material, and their ability to bear the costs of accessing such materials.
5. When considering incorporating by reference highly technical material, agencies should include in the notice of proposed rulemaking an explanation of the material and how its incorporation by reference will further the agency's regulatory purpose.
6. Agencies should periodically review regulations and make technical amendments (
7. Agencies that regularly incorporate private standards should adopt internal procedures to ensure good communication of emerging revisions to those within the agency charged with making policy decisions and writing rules. Agencies should consider participating in standard-setting activities in order to maintain awareness of emerging revisions.
8. Agencies should not address difficulties with updating by confining incorporations by reference to non-binding guidance documents. If an agency intends to make compliance with extrinsic material mandatory, it should incorporate that material by reference in a legislative rule.
9. In the interests of fairness and transparency, agencies should publish regulations or guidance establishing the policies and principles governing equivalency determinations or guiding this use of enforcement discretion in situations where they have been unable to update incorporations by reference in regulations.
10. For rulemakings subject to Section 553 of the APA, agencies should use direct final rulemaking for noncontroversial updates to incorporations by reference.
11. Congress should consider authorizing agencies to use streamlined procedures to update incorporations by reference. An appropriate statutory solution would:
(a) Provide for interested parties to file a petition for rulemaking that would notify the agency of a revised standard, identify the changes from the incorporated version of the standard, explain why updating would be consistent with the agency's regulatory purpose, and provide information on the costs and benefits of incorporating the revised standard;
(b) Vest the agency with authority to determine whether to act on the petition; and
(c) Authorize agencies to grant the petition by issuing a final rule, without regard to otherwise applicable rulemaking requirements, provided that the agency first:
(1) Publishes a notice of the petition in the
(2) Finds that updating regulations as requested in the petition is beneficial and consistent with the regulatory purpose of the relevant regulation.
12. Each agency that incorporates by reference should task its Office of the Federal Register (OFR) liaison or another employee with being a point of contact with OFR and maintaining a close working relationship between the two agencies. Such agencies should take advantage of OFR's training opportunities and follow the procedures of its Document Drafting Handbook (DDH).
13. When considering a regulation that would incorporate by reference, agencies should ensure legal counsel or other experts in OFR regulations, DDH, and policy are involved early in the rulemaking process to reduce the potential for delays in publishing rules. Agencies considering incorporating by reference should reach out to OFR staff early in the rulemaking process.
14. OFR should continue and expand upon its efforts to make the process easier through an electronic submission and review process for incorporation by reference requests.
15. Agencies should ensure that incorporations by reference support, rather than detract from, the usefulness and readability of the Code of Federal Regulations. Incorporated material may provide detail, but a regulation should, by itself, make the basic concept of the rule understandable without the need for the reader to refer to the incorporated material.
16. Agencies should review the language used in material they are considering incorporating by reference to determine whether it is mandatory or merely advisory or voluntary. Agencies promulgating mandatory regulations should take care to specify in the regulation which portions of the material will be considered mandatory after incorporation.
17. When an agency incorporates a document that references a second (or greater) tier document, the agency should acknowledge and explain the substantive legal effect of the secondarily referenced document(s). OFR should consider amending the DDH to call attention to the potential issue of secondary references. If an agency wants to make a second tier document mandatory, it should ensure that such material is reasonably available both to the regulated community and other interested parties.
18. Agencies should be alert to the possibility that some part of their regulations may inadvertently conflict with a requirement incorporated by reference. When drafting regulations, agencies should avoid or resolve any such conflicts.
In June 1991, the Administrative Conference issued Recommendation 91-1, “Federal Agency Cooperation with Foreign Government Regulators,” finding that “[i]f American administrative agencies could ever afford to engage in regulatory activities without regard to the policies and practices of administrative agencies abroad, the character and pace of world developments suggest that that era has come to a close,” and recommending practices such as information exchanges and establishment of common regulatory agendas to facilitate regulatory cooperation. While many of the issues identified in that recommendation remain relevant today, the pace of globalization in the past two decades has created new challenges and dynamics since then. Not only have institutions promoting international cooperation become more robust, with relevant developments including the founding of the World Trade Organization and increasing integration amongst the member states of the European Union, but the volume of trade in goods, services, and information across borders has increased dramatically.
Given these developments, the Administrative Conference commissioned a research project to review international regulatory cooperation at United States government agencies today, assess how the 1991 recommendation has been implemented (or not), identify new challenges that have emerged in the past 20 years, and advise how the 1991 recommendation might be updated to guide agencies in improving international coordination today to benefit regulatory goals and competitiveness. This research shows that, since the 1991 recommendation was adopted, the international coordination efforts of agencies have greatly expanded. Yet the need for international coordination has also greatly expanded due to increased trade in goods, services, and information. Incompatible regulatory requirements in different countries persist. Sometimes these regulations are different for non-substantive reasons—regulators share common goals and methods of regulation, but for historical or other reasons, regulations remain inconsistent. Sometimes regulations differ because regulators in different countries do not agree on important substantive issues, such as how to weigh scientific evidence or balance competing priorities. When differences are substantive, they can sometimes be ascribed to countries' asserting national goals such as protecting health,
The Administrative Conference finds that improved international regulatory cooperation is desirable because it can help United States agencies accomplish their statutory regulatory missions domestically. Indeed, in some areas like regulating the safety of food and drugs, a large proportion of which are imported to the United States, an agency's awareness of and participation in foreign regulatory processes can help to ensure the safety of products reaching United States markets. International regulatory cooperation can also remove non-tariff barriers to trade and exports, promoting global commerce and United States competitiveness. Moreover, these benefits of international regulatory cooperation are not incompatible and can be pursued in unison.
Because of the global nature of the economy, the domestic regulatory mission of many agencies is affected by what happens overseas. For example, imports of food and pharmaceutical products to the United States have greatly increased over the past 20 years, so that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) mission of ensuring food, drug, and device safety in the United States is necessarily intertwined with how these products are regulated in their countries of origin. The Consumer Product Safety Commission faces a similar challenge. Pollutants do not respect political boundaries, so the Environmental Protection Agency's success in achieving its mission in the United States can be affected by environmental regulations in other countries. Financial institutions in the United States participate in the global banking system and are exposed to risks in economies all over the world, which requires financial regulators to coordinate globally. And trade in data crosses national boundaries, requiring the Federal Trade Commission to cooperate with other global regulators in policing Internet fraud.
In addition to the impact on regulatory goals such as health, safety, environmental and consumer protection in the United States, inconsistent regulatory regimes can act as barriers to trade. For example, different food labeling requirements between the United States and Europe require producers who distribute food in both markets to produce the same goods in different packaging, depending on the market, which hinders economies of scale and adds cost and delay. Another example is that the United States and Europe have different approaches to regulating the length of tractor-trailers. Though the American design has better fuel economy, American manufacturers cannot export trucks that comply with United States requirements into European markets without significant redesign, thereby creating an unnecessary barrier to trade.
Many agencies successfully engage in international cooperation through a variety of different methods, such as coordination in regulatory promulgation, mutual recognition of inspection and certification regimes, and coordination and information sharing in enforcement. Some agencies have long coordinated effectively, both with respect to domestic and international issues, even when not mandated to do so. Notably, there is evidence that better international cooperation can help agencies more proficiently accomplish their regulatory missions with fewer resources by dividing work, where appropriate, with foreign counterparts and mutually recognizing each others' inspection regimes and laboratory or test results. The FDA believes there is great potential for cost savings and improved health and safety in mutual reliance on the data from clinical trials and manufacturing quality inspection regimes in other countries. For example, the FDA recently concluded a pilot project with European and Australian regulators to inspect manufacturing plants in China and other countries that manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients. The agencies compared their lists of plants subject to inspection and the resources that each country had available, and where two or more agencies were scheduled to visit the same plant, the agencies agreed on one agency to inspect that plant or to do a joint inspection, and reallocated resources so that they could cover more plants. Building on the success of that pilot, the FDA is now pursuing a similar project with European regulators for site inspections of clinical trials. These cooperative approaches, which show potential for cost savings without diminishing regulatory effectiveness, might be expanded to other agency settings for further cost-saving effects.
However, global regulatory cooperation can be difficult to accomplish. Some agencies claim that they lack statutory authority to account for international effects when making regulatory decisions. Several agency officials, as well as high-level leaders, indicated that international regulatory cooperation was a low priority for certain agency leaders, as it is an issue with little visibility when accomplished successfully. Some agencies indicated that legal restrictions on information sharing can hinder international cooperation. Finally, coordination among some agencies within the United States government is a challenge, and agencies focused on trade and competitiveness, such as the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), are not always aware of the activities of federal regulators.
Twenty years after the adoption of ACUS Recommendation 91-1, agencies increasingly recognize that international regulatory cooperation is an important component of their regulatory missions in today's globally integrated economy. While progress has been made, the scope of the problem leaves more work to be done to eliminate systemic barriers to coordination. The following recommendation restates the parts of the 1991 recommendation that remain valid and relevant and also addresses new considerations, to include promotion of best practices in transparency, mutual reliance, information sharing, and coordination within the United States. Accordingly, the recommendation supersedes Recommendation 91-1.
1. Agencies should inform themselves of the existence of foreign authorities
2. Agencies should review their legal authorization to cooperate with foreign authorities under their authorizing statutes, bearing in mind obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and other relevant treaties adopted by the United States as well as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Where legal authorities do not sufficiently permit appropriate international cooperation in regulation and enforcement that would benefit agencies' missions or promote trade and competitiveness without detracting from their missions, agencies should recommend corrective legislation to OMB and Congress. Absent conflict with their legal authority or missions, agencies should give appropriate consideration to the international implications of regulatory activities.
3. When agencies conclude that they have legal authority and the interest in cooperation from foreign authorities, and that cooperation would further agencies' missions or promote trade and competitiveness without detracting from their missions, they should consider various modes of cooperation with those authorities, including but not limited to:
(a) Establishment of common regulatory agendas;
(b) Exchange of information about present and proposed foreign regulation;
(c) Concerted efforts to reduce differences between the agency's rules and those adopted by foreign government regulators where those differences are not justified;
(d) Holding periodic bilateral or multilateral meetings (either in person or by teleconference or video conference) to assess the effectiveness of past cooperative efforts and to chart future ones; and
(e) Mutual recognition of tests, inspections, clinical trials, and certifications of foreign agencies.
4. To deploy limited resources more effectively, agencies should, where appropriate and practicable, identify foreign authorities that maintain high quality and effective standards and practices and identify areas in which the tests, inspections, or certifications by agencies and such foreign agencies overlap. Where appropriate and practicable, agencies should:
(a) Consider dividing responsibility for necessary tests, inspections, and
(b) Create joint technical or working groups to conduct joint research and development and to identify common solutions to regulatory problems (for example, through parallel notices of proposed rulemaking);
(c) Establish joint administrative teams to draft common procedures and enforcement and dispute resolution policies; and/or
(d) Document and publish cost savings and regulatory benefits from such mutual arrangements.
5. To assess whether foreign authorities maintain high quality and effective standards and practices, agencies should develop and maintain relationships with foreign counterparts by providing training and technical assistance to foreign authorities and developing employee exchange programs, as resources permit. Agencies should also, as resources permit, review whether foreign or international practices would be appropriate for adoption in the United States.
6. Agencies should engage in exchanges of information with foreign authorities to promote better, evidence-based decision-making. Types of information exchanges can range from formal agreements to share data to informal dialogues among agency staff. To the extent practicable, information exchange should be mutually beneficial and reciprocal. Prior to exchanging information, agencies must reach arrangements with foreign counterparts that will protect confidential information, trade secrets, or other sensitive information.
7. When engaging in regulatory dialogues with foreign authorities, agencies should seek input and participation from interested parties as appropriate, through either formal means such as
8. Agencies should promote to foreign authorities the principles that undergird the United States administrative and regulatory process, including, as appropriate:
(a) Transparency, openness and public participation,
(b) Evidence-based and risk-informed regulation,
(c) Cost-benefit analysis,
(d) Consensus-based standard setting,
(e) Accountability under the law,
(f) Clearly defined roles and lines of authority,
(g) Fair and responsive dispute resolution procedures, and
(h) Impartiality.
An agency engaging in international regulatory cooperation should also be alert to the possibility that foreign regulatory bodies may have different regulatory objectives, particularly where a government-owned or controlled enterprise is involved.
9. When engaging with foreign authorities, agencies should, as appropriate, share information and consult with other government agencies having interests that may be affected by the engagement, including but not limited to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR); and the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense.
10. The Executive Office of the President should consider creating a high-level interagency working group of agency heads and other senior officials to provide government-wide leadership on, and to evaluate and promote, international regulatory cooperation.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, governs the process whereby the President or an administrative agency obtains advice from groups that include one or more non-federal employees. It places various limits on the formation of such groups and requires that group meetings be open to public attendance and permit at least a limited degree of public participation. Though Congress has occasionally amended FACA,
Congress, the President, and administrative agencies each can create advisory committees. Advisory committees are classified as either “discretionary” or “non-discretionary.” “Discretionary” advisory committees include those that an agency forms of its own initiative or in response to a statute authorizing the creation of a committee.
FACA furthers three major goals. First, the Act promotes transparency and public participation in the advisory committee process, providing for open meetings and permitting interested members of the public to submit written and/or oral comments to advisory committees.
In order to trigger FACA, an assemblage of individuals must include at least one non-federal employee as well as meet the following requirements: (a) Work as a group, (b) be “established” by statute or “established or utilized” by the President or an administrative agency, and (c) provide “advice or recommendations” to the President or a federal agency.
All advisory committees subject to FACA must comply with a number of procedural requirements.
Agencies are also subject to Executive Order 12,838, issued by President Clinton in 1993, which required agencies to reduce the number of their discretionary advisory committees by one-third.
In certain instances, agencies may wish to form advisory committees consisting of representatives from different stakeholder communities to negotiate the text of a proposed rule.
Both governmental agencies and private groups have criticized the existing FACA regime. Many agencies contend that it is overly cumbersome and limits their ability to obtain outside advice. Numerous private groups have argued that the statute does not adequately promote transparency or preserve a role for the public to participate in the work of committees. Congress has also recently proposed various reforms to FACA that would, as a general matter, extend the scope of the Act and require agencies to undertake various steps to increase transparency in their use of advisory committees.
The data gathered suggest that FACA and/or its implementation by administrative agencies has given rise to at least three types of problems: (1) Procedural burdens that inhibit the effective use of advisory committees without substantially furthering the policies of the Act; (2) confusion about the scope of the statute that may discourage agencies from using committees or induce them to engage in “work-arounds” to avoid triggering its requirements; and (3) agency practices that either undermine or fail to fully promote the transparency and objectivity of the advisory committee process.
The recommendations below propose reforms to address these problems. The first group of recommendations seeks to alleviate barriers and perceived barriers
The second set of recommendations seeks to clarify the Act's scope in light of cases interpreting the Act and in anticipation of congressional amendments recently under consideration that might inhibit agencies' use of advisory committees or lead to use of alternative procedures to avoid triggering the Act. One such amendment would require subcommittees to comply with all provisions of FACA other than chartering, including the open meeting requirements.
The third set of recommendations proposes that both Congress and agencies adopt certain procedures that would enhance the transparency and objectivity of the advisory committee process without imposing onerous procedural or financial burdens on the agencies. These include “best practices” related to committee formation and operation (such as posting committee documents online, webcasting committee meetings, and soliciting input on potential committee members) and recommendations related to the classification of committee members for purposes of applying ethics standards.
1. Congress should amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) and the General Services Administration (“GSA”) should amend its FACA implementing regulations to eliminate any requirement that agencies consult with the Administrator of GSA prior to forming or renewing an advisory committee or implementing a major change to the charter of an existing committee. Specifically, Congress should delete the phrase “after consultation with the Administrator” from section 9(a)(2) of FACA, and GSA should eliminate or suitably revise 41 CFR 102-3.60, 102-3.85(a), which currently require such consultation with GSA's Committee Management Secretariat.
2. Agencies should identify and prioritize those factors for achieving balance among committee members that are directly relevant to the subject matter and purpose of the committee's work. The committee charter should include a description of the committee's mission and the most relevant balance factors.
3. Whenever Congress creates an advisory committee through legislation, it should indicate its intent as to the mission, estimated duration, budget, and preferred membership balance for the committee. Whenever such committees are exempted from the biennial review process, Congress should provide guidance concerning the intended duration of each such committee or, alternatively, a clear explanation of the committee's mission and a provision that the committee should terminate upon completion of that mission.
4. The President and the Office of Management and Budget should eliminate the cap on the number of discretionary advisory committees established by Executive Order 12,838 and Circular A-135.
5. Congress should not eliminate the exemption for subcommittees that report to parent committees currently stated in 41 CFR 102-3.35 unless it codifies an exemption providing that members of committees or subcommittees may meet to conduct “preparatory work” without complying with the notice and open meeting requirements of the Act. The statutory definition of “preparatory work” should be similar to that currently provided in FACA's implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.160(a). Congress and/or GSA should also consider including a clearer list of activities that constitute “preparatory work” than that currently contained in the implementing regulations, including activities such as (i) drafting documents for consideration at a committee meeting, (ii) conducting research or preliminary analysis on topics for discussion at a committee meeting, (iii) engaging in pre-decisional deliberations, (iv) choosing meeting topics, and (v) considering future projects for the committee to undertake.
6. GSA should amend section 102-3.140(e) of the FACA implementing regulations to clarify that, in addition to holding teleconferenced or webconferenced meetings, agencies also may host virtual meetings that can occur electronically in writing over the course of days, weeks or months on a moderated, publicly accessible web forum. Agencies with advisory committees should be aware that they have the option of holding committee meetings via such online forums. To the extent they conduct meetings by web forum, agencies should monitor the process and determine whether it is an efficient and transparent means of hosting meetings.
7. Congress should amend the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561
8. Congress and agencies should adopt the following procedures with respect to the ethics requirements applicable to advisory committee members:
(a) In creating statutory advisory committees, Congress should specify the intended classification of committee members for purposes of applying federal ethics laws. Congress should explicitly classify as “representatives,” not subject to ethics standards, those members who are selected to represent the perspective or interests of a particular group with a stake in the work of the advisory committee. It should explicitly classify as “special government employees” (SGEs), subject to specified federal ethics laws and rules, members who are chosen to provide individual, independent, expert advice.
(b) Congress and individual agencies should prevent misuse of the “representative” designation by limiting it to
(c) Agencies that grant conflict of interest waivers under 18 U.S.C. 208(b) should post such waivers on their Web sites without awaiting a public request for releasing them.
9. Agencies should post on a committee Web site documents “which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee” (
10. Agencies should provide live webcasts of open committee meetings and/or post recordings following such meetings unless the costs are prohibitive. When selecting a webcasting technology, agencies should assess the likely level of public interest in their committees' work, the cost of different technologies (as well as the cost savings such technologies can create), and their available resources.
11. Upon creating a new advisory committee, agencies should announce the committee's mission in the
The rulemaking function of federal regulatory agencies is typically accomplished today through “e-rulemaking”: that is, through “ ‘the use of digital technologies in the development and implementation of regulations,' before or during the informal rulemaking process,
The proliferation of competing demands for communication makes rulemaking only one of the many priorities under consideration when agency officials make decisions about the design and functionality of their Web sites. As a result, there is a risk agencies will make Web site design decisions without giving due consideration to enhancing public participation in rulemaking through the use of electronic media. Indeed, an emerging approach to government Web site design focuses on giving prominence to “top tasks” sought by members of the public. However, an exclusive focus on current Web site use or demand may push information about rulemaking, and online opportunities for public commenting on rulemaking, far into the background—simply because the volume of Web site traffic generated by online government services performed by many agencies dwarfs the traffic related to rulemaking. Rulemaking may never be a “top task” in terms of the numbers of Web users, but in a democracy, few tasks compare in significance with the ability of government agencies to create binding law backed up with the threat of civil, and even criminal, penalties.
The Conference studied the Web sites and e-rulemaking initiatives of 90 agencies, each of which had reported completing an average of two or more rulemakings during each six-month period covered by the semiannual Unified Regulatory Agenda in 2009-2010. The study reveals that individual agencies have used Web sites in innovative ways to promote e-rulemaking. For example, agencies have developed portions of their own Web sites to support rulemaking efforts. Some agencies have specialized Web pages that allow users to submit and view comments on all of the agency's open rulemakings, or to view information on the status of their priority rulemakings. Links from some agency home pages make rulemaking information easy to locate. Other agencies have innovated by using social media to get the public involved in the rulemaking process from the earliest stages. These social media tools include blogs, Facebook, Twitter, IdeaScale, and other online discussion platforms.
Agency innovations can improve the availability of information and engage the public in rulemaking activities, often at no great cost to the government. A cost-effective technique to improve the availability of rulemaking information on individual agency Web sites leverages available centralized data sources. An example of this approach is found on the Web sites of many members of Congress, who provide a link on their home page to a page listing all the legislation the member sponsors. The list is not drawn from the Member's own database, but rather extracts information from a THOMAS database of all legislation currently pending in Congress. Regulations.gov makes a similar tool available to agencies, thus enabling them to provide easy access to complete and up-to-date rulemaking information without the necessity of maintaining the underlying database.
Agency innovations can also further well-established policies in favor of broadening access by groups that have historically faced barriers to participating effectively in rulemaking. In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166 in an effort “to improve access to * * * programs and activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency.”
Individual agency Web sites can also be used to address discrete deficiencies in the availability of critical rulemaking information. One such problem is that many
The Conference believes that, as a general matter, agencies should continue to improve their Web sites to facilitate public accessibility and engagement so as to achieve the promise of e-rulemaking. This recommendation is intended to broadly encourage agencies to develop and use innovative, cost-effective ways to use individual Web sites to solve some of the discrete problems identified above and generally engage the public in rulemaking.
1. Agencies should design and manage their presence on the Web (including the Web as accessed by mobile devices) with rulemaking participation in mind.
2. Each agency should provide access to a one-stop location, which should be easily reachable from its home page, for all of its pending rulemakings, highlighting those that are currently open for comment. This may take the form of providing pinpoint links to specific information about the agency's rulemakings available on Web sites such as Regulations.gov, RegInfo.gov,
3. Agencies should consider, in appropriate rulemakings, using social media tools to raise the visibility of rulemakings. When an agency sponsors a social media discussion of a rulemaking, it should provide clear notice as to whether and how it will use the discussion in the rulemaking proceeding.
4. Agencies should display or link to their comment policies in prominent or multiple locations on their Web sites.
5. Agencies should continue to improve the accessibility of their Web sites to members of the public.
6. Agencies should take steps to improve access for persons who have faced barriers to effectively participating in rulemaking in the past, including non-English speakers, users of low-bandwidth Internet connections, and individuals with disabilities.
7. Agencies should develop systematic protocols to enable the online storage and retrieval of materials from completed rulemakings. Such protocols should, to the extent feasible, ensure that Web site visitors using out-of-date URLs are automatically redirected to the current location of the material sought.
8. Agencies should periodically evaluate their use of the Internet in rulemaking and should continue to innovate and experiment with new and cost-effective ways to engage the public in rulemaking via the Internet.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) intention to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a 3-year extension of and revision to a currently approved information collection of a voluntary customer survey concerning the delivery of official inspection, grading, and weighing services authorized under the United States Grain Standards Act and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This voluntary survey gives customers that are primarily in the grain, oilseed, rice, lentil, dry pea, edible bean, and related agricultural commodity markets an opportunity to provide feedback on the quality of services they receive and provides GIPSA with information on new services that customers wish to receive. Customer feedback assists GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) with enhancing the value of services and service delivery provided by the official inspection, grading, and weighing system.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2012.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Idelisse Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Office of the Deputy Administrator, email address:
Congress enacted the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) and the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) to facilitate the marketing of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. These statutes provide for the establishment of standards and terms which accurately and consistently measure the quality of grain and related products, provide for uniform official inspection and weighing, provide regulatory and service responsibilities, and furnish the framework for commodity quality improvement incentives to both domestic and foreign buyers. The GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) establishes policies, guidelines, and regulations to carry out the objectives of the USGSA and the AMA. Regulations appear at 7 CFR 800, 801, and 802 for the USGSA and 7 CFR 868 for the AMA.
The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires official inspection of export grain sold by grade. Official services are provided, upon request, for grain in domestic commerce. The AMA
The goal of FGIS and the official inspection, grading, and weighing system is to provide timely, high quality, accurate, consistent, and professional service that facilitates the orderly marketing of grain and related commodities. To accomplish this goal and in accordance with Executive Order 12862, FGIS is seeking feedback from a representative sample of customers to evaluate the services provided by the official inspection, grading, and weighing programs.
FGIS needs to maintain a formal means of determining customers' expectations or the quality of official services that are delivered. To collect this information, FGIS would continue to distribute, over a 3-year period, an annual voluntary customer service survey to customers requesting official inspection, grading, and weighing services. FGIS would survey a statistically random sample of approximately 1100 customers per year representing the customers' population as a whole. The survey instrument would continue to consist of nine questions only; subsequent survey instruments would be tailored to earlier responses. FGIS would make available to our customers an electronic version of the survey. The information collected from the survey would permit FGIS to gauge customers' satisfaction with existing services, compare results from year to year, and determine what new services customers' desire. The customer service survey consists of one document containing questions about timeliness, cost effectiveness, accuracy, consistency, usefulness of services and results, and the professionalism of employees. Some examples of survey questions include the following: “I receive results in a timely manner,” “Official results are accurate,” and “Inspection personnel are knowledgeable.” These survey questions would be assessed using a one to five rating scale with responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or “no opinion.” Customers would also be asked about the products for which they primarily request service, and what percentage of their product is officially inspected. Customers can also provide additional comments or request new or existing services on the survey. Space would be added on the revised survey for the customer to provide its email address should it wish to receive future surveys electronically.
By obtaining information from customers through a voluntary customer service survey, FGIS believes that it will continue to improve services and service delivery of its official inspection, grading, and weighing programs that meets or exceeds customer expectations.
As required by the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(i)), GIPSA specifically requests comments on: (1) 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) the accuracy of GIPSA'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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces our intention to request a 3-year extension and revision of a currently approved information collection for “Export Inspection and Weighing Waiver for High Quality Specialty Grain Transported in Containers.”
We will consider comments that we receive by March 19, 2012.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods:
•
• Mail, hand deliver, or courier to Dexter Thomas, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604.
• Fax to (202) 690-2173.
For information regarding the collection of information activities and the use of the information, contact Candace Hildreth at (202) 720-0203.
Congress enacted The United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) to facilitate the marketing of grain in interstate and foreign commerce. The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires that all grain shipped from the United States must be officially inspected and officially weighed. The USGSA authorizes the Department of Agriculture to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA in circumstances when the objectives of the USGSA would not be impaired.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) amended section 7 CFR 800.18 of the regulations to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA for high quality specialty grain exported in containers. GIPSA established this waiver to facilitate the marketing of high quality specialty grain exported in containers. GIPSA determined that this action was consistent with the objectives of the USGSA and would promote the continuing development of the high quality specialty grain export market.
To ensure that exporters of high quality specialty grain complied with this waiver, GIPSA required exporters to maintain records generated during the normal course of business that pertain to these shipments and make these documents available to GIPSA upon request for review or copying purposes (76 FR 45397). These records shall be maintained for a period of 3 years. This information collection requirement is essential to ensure that exporters who ship high quality specialty grain in containers comply with the waiver provisions. GIPSA does not require exporters of high quality specialty grain to complete and submit new Federal government record(s), form(s), or report(s).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at (5 CFR part 1320), this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) intention to request approval for an extension of the currently approved information collection for the NIFA proposal review process.
Written comments on this notice must be received by March 19, 2012, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Gidel Mendez, eGovernment Program Leader; Email:
Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer Review System.
Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in the future. If the reviewer is new they are prompted to complete the questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the NIFA review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.
The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form, the panelist affirms they understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms their intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not disclose to another individual any information related to the peer review or use any information for personal benefit.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to extend public comment period for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is extending the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 7 CFR 1794 related to providing financial assistance to Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland) for its share in the construction of a proposed 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and associated infrastructure between Hampton, Minnesota and the La Crosse area in Wisconsin (the proposed project). Dairyland is participating in the proposed project with a number of other utilities (Applicants).
The purpose of the proposed project is to: (1) Improve community reliability of the transmission system in Rochester, Winona, La Crosse, and the surrounding areas, which include areas served by Dairyland; (2) improve the regional reliability of the transmission system; and (3) increase generation outlet capacity.
Written comments on this Draft EIS will be accepted 30 days following the publication of this notice in the
A copy of the Draft EIS may be viewed online at the following Web site:
To obtain copies of the Draft EIS, to comment on the Draft EIS, or for further information, contact: Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2244, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, or email
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are participating in the EIS as cooperating agencies, with RUS as the lead Federal agency. The Draft EIS addresses the construction and operation of the Proposed project, which, in addition to the 345-kV transmission line and associated infrastructure, includes 161-kV transmission lines in the vicinity of Rochester, Minnesota; construction of two new and expansion of three substations, with a total transmission line length of approximately 150 miles. Counties through which the proposed project may pass include Dakota, Goodhue, Wabasha, and Olmsted in Minnesota, and La Crosse, Trempealeau, and Buffalo in Wisconsin. The Draft EIS also addresses rebuilding an existing Dairyland 39-mile long 161 kV line that extends from Alma to north La Crosse, Wisconsin, which may be co-located in whole or in part with the 345-kV line.
Among the alternatives addressed in the Draft EIS is the No Action alternative, under which the proposed project would not be undertaken. Additional alternatives addressed in the Draft EIS include route alternatives also considered in the EISs prepared for the Proposed project by the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. RUS has carefully studied public health and safety, environmental impacts, and engineering aspects of the Proposed project.
RUS used input provided by government agencies, private organizations, and the public in the preparation of the Draft EIS. RUS will prepare a Final EIS that considers all comments received on the Draft EIS. Following the 30-day comment period for the Final EIS, RUS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD). Notices announcing the availability of the Final EIS and the ROD will be published in the
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulation, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800) and as part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposed project on historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Any party wishing to participate more directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to the RUS contact provided in this notice.
The proposed project involves unavoidable impacts to wetlands and floodplains; this Notice of Availability also serves as a statement of no practicable alternatives to impacts on wetlands and floodplains, in accordance with Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, respectively (see Draft EIS Sections 3.2 and 3.5).
Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, State and local environmental laws and regulations, and completion of the environmental review requirements as promulgated in RUS' Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794).
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of San Jose, California, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting special purpose subzone status for the electric passenger-vehicle manufacturing facilities of Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla), located in Palo Alto and Fremont, California. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on January 10, 2012.
The Tesla facilities (currently employing over 1,000 workers) consist of two sites: Site 1 (25.2 acres)—corporate headquarters, research and development, and manufacturing plant, located at 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California; and, Site 2 (210 acres)—manufacturing plant, located at 45550 Fremont Boulevard, Fremont, California. The facilities are used to manufacture electric passenger vehicles and related components, including battery packs, powertrain systems, and electronic modules (up to 200,000 units of each per year) for commercial sale. Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 16 to 55% of the value of the finished products) include: Oils, greases, fluids, refrigerants, adhesives, sealants, anti-freeze/coolants, alcohols, plastic tubes/pipes/hoses/
FTZ procedures could exempt Tesla from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. The company anticipates that 40 to 65 percent of the facilities' shipments will be exported. On its domestic sales, Tesla would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to finished electric passenger vehicles, battery packs, powertrain components, and electronic modules (free-3.4%) for the foreign inputs noted above. FTZ designation would further allow Tesla to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly customs entry procedures. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. Tesla would also be exempt from duty payments on foreign inputs that become scrap during the production process. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facilities' international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 19, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 2, 2012.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-4895,
This collection implements certain provisions of the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (Firearms Convention). Sections 742.17 and 748.14 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) require exporters of certain firearms to Organization of American States (OAS) countries to obtain an Import Certificate from the government of the importing country. This alerts the OAS country of the proposed import and helps insure compliance with the Firearms Convention.
Submitted electronically or on paper.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC)
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.
5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on September 27, 2011 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
Seven Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) advise the Department of Commerce on the technical parameters for export controls applicable to dual-use commodities and technology and on the administration of those controls. The TACs are composed of representatives from industry representatives, academic leaders and U.S. Government representing diverse points of view on the concerns of the exporting community. Industry representatives are selected from firms producing a broad range of goods, technologies, and software presently controlled for national security, non-proliferation, foreign policy, and short supply reasons or that are proposed for such controls, balanced to the extent possible among large and small firms.
TAC members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve terms of not more than four consecutive years. The membership reflects the Department's commitment to attaining balance and diversity. TAC members must obtain secret-level clearances prior to appointment. These clearances are necessary so that members may be permitted access to the classified information needed to formulate recommendations to the Department of Commerce. Each TAC meets approximately four times per year. Members of the Committees will not be compensated for their services.
The seven TACs are responsible for advising the Department of Commerce on the technical parameters for export controls and the administration of those controls within the following areas: Information Systems TAC: Control List Categories 3 (electronics), 4 (computers), and 5 (telecommunications and information security); Materials TAC: Control List Category 1 (materials, chemicals, microorganisms, and toxins); Materials Processing Equipment TAC: Control List Category 2 (materials processing); Regulations and Procedures TAC: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and Procedures for implementing the EAR; Sensors and Instrumentation TAC: Control List Category 6 (sensors and lasers); Transportation and Related Equipment TAC: Control List Categories 7 (navigation and avionics), 8 (marine), and 9 (propulsion systems, space vehicles, and related equipment) and Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee: (1) The identification of emerging technologies and research and development activities that may be of interest from a dual-use perspective; (2) the prioritization of new and existing controls to determine which are of greatest consequence to national security; (3) the potential impact of dual-use export control requirements on research activities; and (4) the threat to national security posed by the unauthorized exports of technologies.
To respond to this recruitment notice, please send a copy of your resume to Ms. Yvette Springer at
Ms. Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 13, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results and intent to rescind in part, of the 2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
This review covers four respondents: (1) Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (“CPZ/SKF,” also referred to as “SKF”); (2) Tainshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation (“Hailin I&E”);
We invited interested parties to comment on our
Frances Veith or Demitrios Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4295 or (202) 482-2623, respectively.
On July 13, 2011, the Department published its
On November 9, 2011, Hailin I&E submitted its case brief and on November 12, 2011, Petitioner submitted its case brief. On November 16, 2011, Petitioner, Hailin I&E, SKF, Fremont International Trading Inc., d/b/a FIT Bearings (“FIT”), and Northfield Industries LLC (“Northfield”), U.S. importers of TRBs from the PRC, each submitted a rebuttal brief. On November 22, 2011, Petitioner withdrew its request for public and closed hearings.
On November 8, 2011, the Department published an extension of time for the final results to December 12, 2011.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding, “Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative Review,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“IA ACCESS”). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
The POR is June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15
Subsequent to the issuance of the order, we issued the following scope rulings:
On February 7, 2011, in response to an inquiry from Blackstone OTR LLC and OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. (collectively, “Blackstone OTR”), the Department ruled that Blackstone OTR's wheel hub assemblies are included in the scope of the order.
On April 18, 2011, in response to an inquiry from New Trend Engineering Limited (“New Trend”), the Department ruled that: (1) New Trend's splined and non-splined wheel hub assemblies without antilock braking system (“ABS”) elements are included in the scope of the order; and (2) New Trend's wheel hub assemblies with ABS elements are also included in the scope of the order.
On June 14, 2011, in response to an inquiry from Bosda International (USA) LLC (“Bosda”), the Department ruled
On August 2, 2011, in response to an inquiry from DF Machinery International, Inc. (“DF Machinery”), the Department ruled that DF Machinery's agricultural hub units are included in the scope of the order.
In the
Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made certain changes to the margin calculation for CPZ/SKF. For the final results, the Department has made the following changes:
• We adjusted CPZ/SKF's steel bar consumption for all control numbers (“CONNUMs”) to account for CPZ/SKF's consumption of purchased finished forged components not reported in its consumption of steel bar.
• We made the following changes to CPZ/SKF's FOP data for merchandise which CPZ/SKF sold during the POR and which was produced by Spungen-owned Peer Bearing Company, Ltd.—Changshan (“CPZ/PBCD”). As facts available, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), in our normal value calculation for CPZ/SKF: (1) We included consumption factors from CPZ/PBCD's prior period FOP database and third-country processing costs, where applicable;
In the
As discussed above, the Department continues to find that Sihe and Kaiyuan have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. For the exporters subject to a review that are determined to be eligible for separate rate status, but are not selected as individually examined respondents, the Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding any rates that are zero,
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an
With regard to Hailin I&E, we continue to find that Hailin Zhongke (1) is the successor-in-interest to HB Factory; and (2) was Hailin I&E's sole supplier of TRBs sold to the United States during the POR. We will instruct CBP to liquidate Hailin I&E's entries of subject merchandise produced by Hailin Zhongke during the POR without regard to antidumping duties for any unliquidated entries after November 9, 2001.
With regard to CPZ/SKF, we made a correction to the calculation of the preliminary, importer-specific assessment rate. For the
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 CPZ/SKF, Sihe, and Kaiyuan, 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 final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an opportunity to apply for membership on the Manufacturing Council.
The Department of Commerce is currently seeking applications to fill six vacant positions on the Manufacturing Council (Council). The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector and to provide a forum for regular communication between Government and the manufacturing sector.
Please submit application information via email to
All applications must be received by the Office of Advisory Committees by close of business on February 9, 2012.
Jennifer Pilat, Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4501, email:
The Office of Advisory Committees is accepting applications for six vacant positions on the Council for the current two-year charter term that began April 8, 2010. The appointed members shall serve until September 30, 2012 and would be eligible for possible reappointment. The member will be selected, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, based on his or her ability to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing sector, to act as a liaison among the stakeholders represented by the membership and to provide a forum for those stakeholders on current and emerging issues in the manufacturing sector. The Council's membership shall reflect the diversity of American manufacturing by representing a balanced cross-section of the U.S. manufacturing industry in terms of industry sectors, geographic locations, demographics, and company size, particularly seeking the representation of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Based on the diversity of the manufacturing industry currently represented on the Council, the Department is particularly encouraging applicants from the high-tech or bio-tech manufacturing and alternative energy manufacturing sectors. Additional factors that may be considered in the selection of these Council members include each candidate's proven experience in promoting, developing and marketing programs in support of manufacturing industries, proven experience in job creation in the manufacturing sector, and proven abilities to manage manufacturing organizations. Given the duties and objectives of the Council, the Department particularly seeks applicants who are active manufacturing executives (Chief Executive Officer, President, or a comparable level of responsibility) and who are leaders within their local manufacturing communities and industries.
Each Council member serves as the representative of a U.S. entity in the manufacturing sector. For the purposes of eligibility, a U.S. entity is defined as a firm incorporated in the United States (or an unincorporated firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by another U.S. entity. An entity is not a U.S. entity if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. entities.
Appointments to the Council will be made by the Secretary of Commerce. All Council members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. Council members shall serve in a representative capacity, representing the views and interests of their particular subsector within the manufacturing sector. Council members are not Special Government Employees.
Council members receive no compensation for their participation in Council activities. Members participating in Council meetings and events are responsible for their travel, living and other personal expenses. Meetings are held regularly and not less than annually, usually in Washington, DC. Members are required to attend a majority of the Council's meetings. The current Council last convened for a briefing on September 29, 2011 in Washington, DC. The next meeting is scheduled to take place on January 20, 2012 in Washington, DC. See 76 FR 79655 (Dec. 22, 2011) for further details. To be considered for membership, please provide the following:
1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration.
2. A sponsor letter from the applicant on his or her entity's letterhead or, if the applicant is to represent an entity other than his or her employer, a letter from the entity to be represented, containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the Council. This sponsor letter should also address the applicant's manufacturing-related experience, including any manufacturing trade policy experience.
3. The applicant's personal resume.
4. An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all eligibility criteria.
5. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
6. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that, if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Council member if the applicant becomes a federally registered lobbyist.
7. Information regarding the control of the entity to be represented, including the governing structure and stock holdings, as appropriate, signifying compliance with the criteria set forth above.
8. The entity's size and ownership, product or service line and major markets in which the entity operates.
9. Please include all relevant contact information such as mailing address, fax, email, phone number, and support staff information where relevant.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through the Information Collection Review page at
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before February 16, 2012 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of meetings.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) is announcing a teleconference and the seventh meeting of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) on phthalates and phthalate substitutes. The Commission appointed this CHAP on April 14, 2010, to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives, as used in children's toys and child care articles, pursuant to section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) (Pub. L. 110-314). The CHAP will discuss its progress toward completing its analysis of potential risks from phthalates and phthalate substitutes.
The teleconference will take place from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. EST (15:00 to 17:00 GMT) on Wednesday, February 1, 2012. Interested members of the public may listen to the CHAP's discussion. Members of the public will not have the opportunity to ask questions, comment, or otherwise participate in the teleconference. Interested parties should contact the CPSC project manager, Michael Babich, by email (
The meeting will be held in the fourth floor hearing room at the Commission's offices at 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Michael Babich, Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7253; email
Section 108 of the CPSIA permanently prohibits the sale of any “children's toy or child care article” containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three specified phthalates: Di- (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Section 108 of the CPSIA also prohibits, on an interim basis, the sale of any “children's toy that can be placed in a child's mouth” or “child care article” containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three additional phthalates: diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP).
Moreover, section 108 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to convene a CHAP “to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles.” The CPSIA requires the CHAP to complete an examination of the full range of phthalates that are used in products for children and:
• Examine all of the potential health effects (including endocrine-disrupting effects) of the full range of phthalates;
• Consider the potential health effects of each of these phthalates, both in isolation, and in combination with other phthalates;
• Examine the likely levels of children's, pregnant women's, and others' exposure to phthalates, based upon a reasonable estimation of normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such products;
• Consider the cumulative effect of total exposure to phthalates, both from children's products and from other sources, such as personal care products;
• Review all relevant data, including the most recent, best-available, peer-reviewed, scientific studies of these phthalates and phthalate alternatives that employ objective data-collection practices or employ other objective methods;
• Consider the health effects of phthalates not only from ingestion, but
• Consider the level at which there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals and their offspring, considering the best available science, and using sufficient safety factors to account for uncertainties regarding exposure and susceptibility of children, pregnant women, and other potentially susceptible individuals; and
• Consider possible similar health effects of phthalate alternatives used in children's toys and child care articles.
The CPSIA contemplates completion of the CHAP's examination within 18 months of the panel's appointment on April 14, 2010. The CHAP has an additional 6 months to complete its final report to the Commission. The CHAP must review prior work on phthalates by the Commission, but it is not to be considered determinative because the CHAP's examination must be conducted de novo.
The CHAP must make recommendations to the Commission regarding any phthalates (or combinations of phthalates), in addition to those identified in section 108 of the CPSIA, or phthalate alternatives that the panel determines should be prohibited from use in children's toys or child care articles, or otherwise restricted. The CHAP members were selected by the Commission from scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences.
The CHAP met previously in April, July, and December 2010, and in March, July, and November 2011, at the CPSC's offices in Bethesda, MD, and by teleconference in November 2010, September 2011, and December 2011. The CHAP heard testimony from interested parties at the July 2010, and November 2011 meetings. The February 2012 teleconference and public meeting will include discussion of the CHAP's progress in preparing a final report. There will not be any opportunity for public comment during the February 2012 teleconference or the public meeting.
The National Civilian Community Corps Advisory Board gives notice of the following meeting:
Tuesday, February 14, 2012, 2 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
Conference room #8312, 8th floor, Corporation for National and Community Service Headquarters, 1201 New York Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20525
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: (888) 455-7057 conference call access code number NCCC. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Corporation will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is (203) 369-1895. The end replay date: March 14, 2012, 11:59 p.m. (CT).
Open.
Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify the Corporation's contact person by 5 p.m. Wednesday, January 27, 2012.
Erma Hodge, NCCC, Corporation for National and Community Service, 9th Floor, Room 9802B, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone (202) 606-6696. Fax (202) 606-3459. TTY: (800) 833-3722. Email:
DIA, Department of Defense (DoD).
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 (2001)), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.10, DoD hereby announces that the DIA Advisory Board will meet on February 24, 2012. The meeting is closed to the public. The meetings necessarily include discussions of classified information relating to DIA's intelligence operations including its support to current operations.
The meeting will be held on February 24, 2012 (from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.).
The meeting will be held at Bolling Air Force Base.
Mr. Mark Harrison, (703) 697-5102, Alternate Designated Federal Official, DIA Office for Congressional and Public Affairs, Pentagon 1A874, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Committee's Designated Federal Official: Mr. William Caniano, (703) 614-4774, DIA Office for Congressional and Public Affairs, Pentagon 1A874, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
For the Advisory Board to discuss DIA operations and capabilities in support of current intelligence operations.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Director, DIA, has determined that the all meetings shall be closed to the public. The Director, DIA, in consultation with the DIA Office of the General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of the Board's meetings be closed to the public because they include discussions of classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Board Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements at any time to the DIA Advisory Board regarding its missions and functions. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the DIA Advisory Board. The Designated Federal Official will ensure that written statements are provided to the Board for its consideration. Written statements may also be submitted in response to the stated agenda of planned board meetings. Statements submitted in response to this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after that date may not be provided or considered by the Board until its next meeting. All submissions provided before that date will be presented to the Board before the meeting that is subject of this notice. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official is listed under
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice; correction.
The notice published in the
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Army announces that, unless there is objection, after 15 days it will grant an exclusive license to Triumph Actuation Systems—Connecticut, LLC, of Bloomfield, CT in U.S. patent 7,228,779, issued June 12, 2007, “Automatic Primer Feed Mechanism”; U.S. patent 7,246,549, issued July 24, 2007, “Automatic Primer Feed Mechanism; U.S. patent 7,318,369, issued January 15, 2008, “Out-of-Battery Lock for the Automatic Primer Feed Mechanism”; U.S. patent 7,845,264, issued December 7, 2010, “Automatic Primer Feed Mechanism”. Any license granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.
File written objections by February 1, 2012.
Mr. Timothy S. Ryan, Technology Transfer Program Manager, RDAR-EIB, U.S. Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, email:
Written objections must be filed within 15 days from publication date of this notice in the
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) is waiving the statutory limitation for certain defense items produced in the United Kingdom (UK). The law limits DoD procurement of certain items to sources in the national technology and industrial base. The waiver will permit procurement of enumerated items from sources in the UK, unless otherwise restricted by statute.
This waiver is effective beginning February 1, 2012, until February 1, 2013.
Ms. Patricia Foley, OUSD (AT&L), Office of the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Contract Policy and International Contracting, Room 5E621, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, telephone (703) 693-1145.
Subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. 2534 provides that the Secretary of Defense may procure the items listed in that subsection only if the manufacturer of the item is part of the national technology and industrial base. Subsection (i) of 10 U.S.C. 2534 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
DoD has had a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the UK since 1975, most recently renewed on December 16, 2004.
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) finds that the UK does not discriminate against defense items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the United States discriminates against defense items produced in the UK, and also finds that application of the limitation in 10 U.S.C. 2534 against defense items produced in the UK would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under the MOU.
Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2534, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) has determined that application of the limitation of 10 U.S.C. 2534(a) to the procurement of any defense item produced in the UK that is listed below would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under the MOU with the UK.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) is waiving the limitation in 10 U.S.C. 2534(a) for procurements of any defense item listed below that is produced in the UK. This waiver applies only to the limitations in 10 U.S.C. 2534(a). It does not apply to any other limitation, including section 8016 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74). This waiver applies to procurements under solicitations issued during the period from February 1, 2012, to February 1, 2013. Similar waivers have been granted since 1998, most recently in 2010 (75 FR 76447, December 8, 2010).
1. Air circuit breakers.
2. Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain with a diameter of four inches or less.
3. Gyrocompasses.
4. Electronic navigation chart systems.
5. Steering controls.
6. Pumps.
7. Propulsion and machinery control systems.
8. Totally enclosed lifeboats.
Department of Education.
Notice of decision.
The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that on September 18, 2010, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of
You may obtain a copy of the full text of the arbitration panel decision from Mary Yang, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6327. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-(800) 877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
This arbitration panel was convened by the Department under 20 U.S.C. 107d-l(a), after receiving a complaint from the Complainant, John Bell. Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the
John Bell (Complainant) alleged violations by the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the State licensing agency (SLA), under the Act and implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. Complainant alleged that the SLA violated the Act, the implementing regulations and the New Jersey Administrative Code concerning Complainant's management of a facility comprised of laundry equipment and vending machines at the Fairton Federal Correction Institution (Fairton) operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at Fairton, New Jersey.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that the SLA unlawfully (1) entered into an “intergovernmental agreement” with BOP rather than a “permit” for the Fairton facility; (2) allowed BOP to collect 15 percent of Complainant's net sales, as opposed to net profit; (3) allowed BOP to improperly change the rate charged for laundry services; (4) failed to pay the cost of replacing certain laundry machines in 2003 and/or failed to reimburse Complainant for $48,000 for the lease purchase agreement he signed to replace the laundry machines himself; (5) required Complainant to pay the first $200 in repair costs for each machine breakdown; and (6) failed to provide Complainant with a State fair hearing.
Complainant requested that the arbitration panel grant the following relief: (1) Damages of approximately $440,000; (2) an order directing the SLA to file an arbitration against the BOP regarding the 15 percent that Complainant paid to BOP; (3) a recommendation from the panel to the Secretary of Education that the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired be removed as the SLA under the Act based upon its failure to provide Complainant with a full State fair hearing; and (4) costs incurred in this proceeding, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Complainant filed for a State fair hearing of his complaint, which was held on October 23, 2007. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) set January 15, 2008, as the date for the parties to submit post-hearing briefs. However, prior to the decision, the SLA requested that the ALJ return the case to it. Complainant opposed the request, but the ALJ advised Complainant that under New Jersey law he was required to relinquish the case back to the SLA.
Subsequently, Complainant filed with the Department a request for Federal arbitration seeking an appeal of the State fair hearing decision. A Federal
After reviewing all of the testimony and evidence, the panel found that most of the grievances were time barred, either by operation of the 15-day time limit set forth in the New Jersey Administrative Code, the doctrine of latches, or both. The panel further determined that Complainant did not show that the SLA had violated the Act or the Federal and State implementing regulations. Accordingly, the panel majority concluded that Complainant was not entitled to any remedy with the exception of Complainant's claim for the costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, he incurred in the State evidentiary hearing.
However, with respect to the State fair hearing, the panel majority concluded that the SLA knew, or had reason to know, prior to the commencement of the ALJ hearing, that Complainant's case would require the ALJ to interpret two potentially conflicting Federal statutes and, as a result, that the ALJ might lack subject matter jurisdiction. Yet, the SLA allowed the ALJ hearing to take place and asked the ALJ to return the case after Complainant had submitted his post-hearing brief requiring significant time and resources to no avail. Thus, the panel majority ruled that fundamental principles of fairness require that the SLA reimburse Complainant for the costs expended by Complainant in the State fair hearing, including reasonable attorney's fees.
The panel also retained jurisdiction of this matter for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes regarding the amount the SLA must pay Complainant for those costs.
One panel member dissented in part and concurred in part. This panel member dissented from the panel's determination that the commission payment was neither timely protested by Complainant nor a violation of the Act but concurred with the panel majority regarding the SLA's reimbursement to Complainant for costs incurred in the State fair hearing, including reasonable attorney's fees.
On January 11, 2011, the SLA sought reconsideration of the portion of the panel's award granting Complainant the costs he incurred in the State fair hearing, including reasonable attorney's fees.
The panel agreed to consider the SLA's motion and granted Complainant the opportunity to reply, which he did on or about March 2, 2011.
On March 25, 2011, the panel conferred via conference call. After reviewing the parties' motions including the legal authority cited, the panel unanimously denied the SLA's motion for reconsideration on the merits and affirmed its initial decision of September 18, 2010, to award Complainant his costs for the State fair hearing, including reasonable attorney's fees.
The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Request for information.
In light of recent, high-profile reports of misconduct by school officials in the test administration process, the U.S. Department of Education (“the Department” or “we”) is seeking to collect and share information about best practices that have been used to prevent, detect, and respond to irregularities in academic testing. To that end, the Department is taking several steps, described below, to collect information and gather suggestions to assist State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and the testing-integrity-focused organizations that service them. The Department anticipates making use of this information to facilitate further dialogue and to help SEAs and LEAs identify, share, and implement best practices for preventing, detecting, and investigating irregularities in academic testing.
First, the Department is issuing this request for information (RFI) to collect information about the integrity of academic testing. We pose a series of questions to which we invite interested members of the public to respond. Second, the Department will host a symposium where external experts can engage in further discussion and probe these issues in greater depth.
Third, the Department will publish a document that contains a summary of the recommendations that were developed as a result of the RFI and the symposium, as well as other resources identified by external experts participating in the symposium.
Written submissions must be received by the Department on or before 5 p.m., Washington, DC time, on February 16, 2012.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In addition, please include the Docket ID and the term “Testing Integrity response” at the top of your comments.
•
•
•
Given the subject matter, some comments may include proprietary information as it relates to confidential commercial information. The Freedom of Information Act defines “confidential commercial information” as information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm. You may wish to request that we not disclose what you regard as confidential commercial information.
To assist us in making a determination on your request, we encourage you to identify any specific information in your comments that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the information by page and paragraph numbers.
Carlos Martinez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202-6132 by phone at (202) 260-1440.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-(800) 877-8339.
The Department is seeking information about testing integrity that may help SEAs and LEAs ensure the integrity of the data used to measure student achievement and to ensure meaningful educational accountability in SEAs and LEAs. This is a request for information only. This RFI is specifically inquiring into best practices regarding: (1) Preventing and reducing testing irregularities in State academic assessments; (2) detecting and analyzing testing irregularities; (3) reviewing and investigating alleged testing irregularities; and (4) for assessments that are increasingly delivered online and by computer, how responses to the first three issues described above might be different from those that apply to assessments administered through more traditional means.
For the purposes of this RFI, a testing irregularity includes any occurrence that may inappropriately influence a student's performance on a State academic assessment, provide the appearance of impropriety, or otherwise constitute a breach in test security or improper administration of State academic testing.
This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a notice inviting applications (NIA). This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Department is not now seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI.
If you do not respond to this RFI, you may still apply for future contracts and grants. The Department posts RFPs on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site (
The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
Educators, parents, and the public in general rely on accurate, reliable, and timely information on student academic performance to improve instruction and help all students reach and maintain high levels of achievement. Indeed, the availability of valid, reliable, and timely data on student performance is essential in informing instruction, identifying professional development needs, helping ensure meaningful accountability, and implementing effective education reforms.
Accordingly, SEAs and LEAs must ensure the integrity of the data they use to measure student achievement and ensure meaningful educational accountability. Under section 1111(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, (ESEA) and 34 CFR 200.1-200.24, States must establish and maintain assessment systems that are valid, reliable, and consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards. Even the slightest appearance of impropriety in the test administration process can undermine State accountability systems—painstakingly built over the past decade—and damage the credibility of reform efforts underway across the country.
Accordingly, State and local officials have an interest in, and share responsibility for defending against, security breaches and threats to educational data integrity. States have a long history of stewardship of academic assessments, and many States have made great efforts to ensure that their assessments and other data collection instruments are properly administered and that data security requirements are clearly specified and followed.
The Department also has a role in this area. Under Title I of the ESEA, the Department is required to review and approve each State's assessment system. Accordingly, the Department examines evidence compiled and submitted by each State about its process for monitoring and improving the technical quality of its system. During the review of State assessment systems, the Department specifically examines procedures and policies for test security and data quality, including the training and monitoring of staff.
For these reasons, this RFI seeks solutions; advice; technical information; legal, regulatory, and policy approaches; and other input from the public regarding best practices for the prevention, detection, and investigation of alleged or actual testing irregularities. Through this RFI, the Department also seeks to gather information and suggestions for SEAs and LEAs on how they can address these issues.
In addition, as noted earlier, the Department will host a symposium where external experts can engage in further discussion and probe these issues in greater depth. Responses to the RFI will be shared with the external experts, to inform their planning for the symposium. A summary of the recommendations that are developed as a result of the RFI and the symposium, as well as other resources identified by external experts participating in the symposium, will be published shortly thereafter to help inform the field.
3.1 The primary goal of this RFI is to gather information that will help SEAs and LEAs better understand existing best practices for preventing, detecting, and investigating testing irregularities. To that end, the Department welcomes responses that address SEA and LEA policies and practices related to these areas and to State laws and regulations. To help focus our consideration of the responses provided, we have developed several questions. Because the questions are only guides to helping us better understand the issues surrounding testing integrity, respondents do not have to respond to any specific question, and may provide comments in a format that is convenient to them. Commenters may also provide relevant
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.10
3.2.11
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 6771.
Department of Energy.
Notice of cancellation of open meeting.
On December 23, 2011, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on January 19, 2012, of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah. This notice announces the cancellation of this meeting. The meeting is being cancelled because the board will not have a quorum due to scheduling conflicts by members. The next regular meeting will be held on February 16, 2012.
The meeting scheduled for January 19, 2012, announced in the
Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001; Phone: (270) 441-6825.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting: Correction.
On December 20, 2011, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on January 25, 2012 of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico (76 FR 78909). This document makes a correction to that notice.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
In the
In that notice under
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, February 2, 2012, 6 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Joel Bradburne, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3822,
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Commission staff members Steve Rodgers and Saeed Farrokhpay, both of the Office of Energy Market Regulation, are assigned to assist in developing tariff provisions that are responsive to the Commission's December 7, 2011 order issued in the above-referenced docket and/or a settlement agreement in this proceeding.
As “non-decisional” staff, Messrs. Rodgers and Farrokhpay will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced docket, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements.
Different Commission “advisory staff” will be assigned to review and process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced docket, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent communications with one another concerning matters in the above-referenced docket.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. All local, state, and Federal agencies, tribes, and interested parties are hereby invited to participate. Please contact Janet Hutzel at (202) 502-8675 or via email at
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
On November 1, 2011, Modern Hydro filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the feasibility of the proposed Delhi Milldam Water Power Project No. 14311 to be located at the existing Delhi Dam, on the south fork of the Maquoketa River, near the township of Delhi, in Delaware County, Iowa. The Delhi Dam is owned by the Lake Delhi Recreation Association Board. There are no federal lands associated with the project.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing Delhi Dam and reservoir; (2) an existing 61-foot-wide concrete powerhouse; (3) an existing 86-foot-long concrete-gated ogee spillway with three 25-foot-wide vertical sluice gates; (4) two refurbished 2,400-volt Westinghouse generator units powered by two refurbished S. Morgan Smith turbines with a combined generating capacity of 1,500 kilowatts; (5) an existing substation connected to an existing 12.5-kilovolt distribution line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 2,960,000 kilowatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and 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 Commission's Web site at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites public nominations of scientific experts to be considered as peer reviewers for the external review of the draft research report entitled, “Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming.” The draft research report was prepared by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), within the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), and by EPA Region 8. EPA released the draft report for public comment on December 14, 2011 (see
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external peer review, will organize and conduct the external peer review. Nominees must have expertise in the areas described under “Expertise Sought” below, be free of any conflict of interest, and be available to participate in a one- to two-day peer review meeting that will take place in March or April, 2012 (exact date to be determined based on reviewer availability). ERG will consider and screen all nominated candidates against the selection criteria described under “Reviewer Selection” below. A second
The public comment period for “Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming” began December 14, 2011, and ends January 27, 2012. Peer reviewers will be provided with all public comments for their consideration as they review the research report.
Nominations for scientific peer review should be submitted via email as soon as they are available, but no later than February 17, 2012. Nominations should consist of the nominee's full name and their current email address or other contact information.
Peer reviewer nominations (including full name, email, and if available phone number) should be sent to
Candidates must have a medium to high degree of experience and expertise (and numerous publications, research projects, or field experience) in one or more of the following areas:
Rebecca Foster, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 1198, Ada, OK 74821; telephone: (580) 436-8750: facsimile: (580) 436-8529; or email:
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, January 19, 2012 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, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 31, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
In accordance with Section 271.7(d) of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on December 13, 2011.
“The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Thomas Dahdouh ((415) 848-5122), FTC, Western Regional Office—San Francisco, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 11, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 6, 2012. Write “AmeriGas, File No. 121 0022” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “AmeriGas, File No. 121 0022” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Proposed Order”) with AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (“AmeriGas”), AmeriGas Propane, Inc., Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”), and Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (“ETP GP”), which is designed to guard against possible anticompetitive effects that would likely result from the transaction as originally proposed.
On October 15, 2011, AmeriGas entered into an agreement with ETP and ETP GP in which AmeriGas proposed to acquire ETP's Heritage Propane business through the approximately $2.9 billion acquisition of four entities owned by ETP, Heritage Operating, L.P., Heritage GP, LLC, Titan Energy Partner, L.P., and Titan Energy GP, L.L.C. ETP's Heritage Propane business includes Heritage Propane Express, an entity that is engaged in the business of preparing, filling, distributing and selling portable cylinders prefilled with propane commonly used for barbeque grills (referred to herein as “propane exchange cylinders”). The AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange or “ACE” division is also engaged in the business of preparing, filling, distributing and selling exchange cylinders, and is the second largest provider of propane exchange cylinders in the United States. In response to competitive concerns raised by Commission staff regarding
AmeriGas, a limited partnership, is the largest propane distribution company in the United States. Its ACE division supplies prefilled propane exchange cylinders to retailers who then sell those cylinders to consumers. AmeriGas is the second largest supplier and marketer of propane exchange cylinders.
ETP GP is a publicly traded partnership and the general partner of ETP, which is also a publicly traded partnership. ETP is engaged in the business of supplying propane exchange cylinders through its Heritage Propane Express division. Heritage Propane Express is the third largest supplier and marketer of propane exchange cylinders in the country with operations in 37 states.
Propane exchange cylinders, often referred to as 20 pound DOT cylinders,
Companies that distribute and sell propane exchange cylinders typically provide the following services, either directly or indirectly: Cylinder preparation (including cleaning, rust removal, repainting and valve repairs for the cylinders); refilling with a designated amount of propane; marketing and distribution (including delivery and retrieval of cylinders, and placement and maintenance of cages that display and dispense exchange cylinders at retail locations); and sale of exchange cylinders.
The Complaint alleges that the market for propane exchange cylinder services that can serve large multi-state chain retailers is highly concentrated. Large multi-state retail chains generally require that their propane exchange cylinder suppliers have the scale and geographic scope of coverage to handle significant portions of their business. These retailers also require that their propane exchange cylinder suppliers offer “just in time” deliveries to ensure that cages are continuously stocked with prefilled cylinders, particularly during peak holiday periods and weekends. Currently, there are only three suppliers that can provide propane exchange cylinder services to such retailers: Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.'s “Blue Rhino” division, the largest provider of propane exchange cylinder services on a national and regional basis; AmeriGas's ACE, the second largest provider of propane exchange cylinder services; and ETP's Heritage Propane Express, the third largest provider of these services. The Complaint alleges that AmeriGas's acquisition of the Heritage Propane Exchange assets, as originally proposed, would have reduced the number of companies that can supply these services to multi-state retail chains from three to two.
The Complaint further alleges that Heritage Propane Express played the role of a disruptive “maverick,” offering lower prices and better terms and conditions than the other two large players. In addition, the Complaint alleges that entry into the market for supply of propane exchange cylinder services to large multi-state chain retailers is not likely to be timely or sufficient to defeat a price increase due to the large scale of entry needed to service large national or regional retailers requiring reliable distribution services in many locations.
The Complaint alleges that the effect of the acquisition, as originally proposed, may be to substantially lessen competition by,
AmeriGas, AmeriGas Propane, Inc., ETP and ETP GP have now entered into an amendment to their original agreement. Pursuant to this amendment (“Amendment 2”), AmeriGas will not acquire the Heritage Propane Express assets. Rather, they will continue to be operated by ETP through a new subsidiary, Heritage Propane Express, LLC, until such time as ETP decides to sell those assets. However, because Heritage Propane Express, LLC will no longer have access to certain back office and propane supply services that will be transferred to AmeriGas, AmeriGas is required to make such services available to Heritage Propane Express, LLC at cost for a specified period of time. This provision will allow Heritage Propane Express, LLC to continue to function as a viable entity. Amendment 2 contains a number of other provisions addressing the provision of transition services that are likely to be needed. Because Amendment 2 contains competitively sensitive information, the details of the transition services are not publicly available.
The Order remedies the Commission's competitive concerns raised by the original transaction, as proposed.
The Order incorporates Amendment 2, described above, into the Order and requires the Respondents to comply with all the terms of that document, including all terms pertaining to the provision of transition services by AmeriGas to Heritage Propane Express, LLC until such time as Heritage Propane
Section II.C of the Order requires that, for a period of two years, ETP cannot sell the Heritage Propane Express assets without prior written approval of the Commission. This ensures that the Commission will have an opportunity to review a future sale of these assets, particularly if the assets would not be reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. Section II.D requires ETP to provide prior notification to the Commission before acquiring any other cylinder exchange businesses for the next 10 years. Section II.E similarly requires AmeriGas to provide prior notification to the Commission before acquiring any other cylinder exchange businesses for the next 10 years. Both II.D and II.E provide that prior notification is not necessary for transactions that fall under a certain threshold in terms of the annual sales of propane exchange cylinders by any company that they propose to acquire.
Section II.F addresses the availability of the transition services outlined in Amendment 2. It requires that AmeriGas make these transition and supply services available to ETP for up to one year, so that Heritage Propane Express, LLC can be operated as a viable entity. If that company is sold within one year, Section II.F requires that AmeriGas provide transition and propane supply services to Heritage Propane Express's buyer for a period of six months, with an option to extend the arrangement for another six months. These provisions are designed to ensure that the Heritage Propane Express assets will continue to be viable as a stand-alone propane exchange cylinder business and that any new purchaser will have the necessary services and supply for a short transition period. Section II.G requires ETP to operate the Heritage Propane Express assets in a manner that maintains their economic viability for a period of two years or until ETP no longer holds an interest in the assets.
The remaining Order provisions are standard reporting requirements to allow the Commission to determine on-going compliance with the provisions of the Order.
The Final Order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments from interested parties. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the comments received and determine whether to take further action. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate comment on the Consent Agreement and Order. This analysis does not constitute and official interpretation of the Consent Agreement or Order, not does it modify its terms in any way. The Consent Agreement does not constitute an admission by AmeriGas, ETP or ETP GP that they have violated the law or that the facts as alleged in the Complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Teleconference Meeting Notice.
This notice provides the schedule for three teleconference meetings of the Green Building Advisory Committee (the Committee). The teleconference meetings are open to the public. Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2).
Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration, 1275 First Street NE., Room 633D, Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 219-1121 (note: this is not a toll-free number). Email:
Contact Tyler Telesford at (202) 501-9153 or Sheila Turner at (202) 501-8880 to receive the teleconference call-in number to listen to the teleconference, as well as to obtain advance meeting materials. The public is invited to submit written comments relevant to the topics covered in these teleconferences by written statement to Ken Sandler at the GSA address above or at
The Green Building Advisory Committee provides advice to GSA as specified in Public Law 110-140, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Under this authority, the Committee will advise GSA on the rapid transformation of the Federal building portfolio to sustainable technologies and practices. The Committee focuses primarily on reviewing strategic plans, products and activities of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings and providing advice regarding how the Office can most effectively accomplish its mission.
• Overall GSA Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings (OFHPGB) strategy and project plan.
• National Research Council Levers for Change report.
Following are the proposed topics for the February and March teleconference meetings. More detailed agendas will be available closer to the meetings. Please contact the Designated Federal Officer, Ken Sandler at the email address or telephone number above.
• “Blue sky” discussion: best opportunities for transformative change to Federal sustainable buildings.
• Communications/Research into Practice Knowledge Hub.
• High-Performance Building Demonstration Projects.
Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of FTR Bulletin 12-02, Calendar Year (CY) 2012 Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement Rates.
The General Services Administration's (GSA) annual privately owned vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement rate review has resulted in no rate changes when employees use their privately owned automobile (POA), their POA when Government owned automobiles (GOA) are authorized, their privately owned airplane, and/or their privately owned motorcycle for official purposes. FTR Bulletin 12-02 indicates that there will be no POV rate changes beginning on January 1, 2012. This notice announcing FTR Bulletin 12-02 is the only notification of this decision.
FTR Bulletin 12-02 and all other FTR Bulletins are posted at
This notice is effective on January 17, 2012 and applies to travel performed on or after January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, unless changed by a subsequent bulletin.
For clarification of content, please contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at (202) 219-2349, or by email at
GSA's annual privately owned vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement rate review has resulted in no rate changes when employees use their privately owned automobile (POA), their POA when Government owned automobiles (GOA) are authorized, their privately owned airplane, and/or their privately owned motorcycle for official purposes. Historically, GSA has determined these rates by reviewing the annual standard automobile study conducted by the Internal Revenue Service, as well as conducting independent automobile, motorcycle, and aircraft studies, and/or by applying consumer price index data. GSA will continue to monitor these costs on a monthly basis and will adjust the rate if warranted. Any adjustments will be posted in the
GSA posts the POV mileage reimbursement rates, formerly published in 41 CFR Chapter 301, solely on the Internet at
Notices published periodically in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
The study seeks to answer two questions: (a) Objectively, is the Educational Interactive Video for Research Integrity (EIVRI) effective in achieving learning outcomes? (b) Subjectively, do learners and teachers perceive the video simulation as effective in helping them learn and teach research integrity? To answer the first question, a pretest-posttest control group experimental design is used to assess the effectiveness of individual learning of research integrity principles and concepts through the use of the video simulation. The video simulation instruction will be incorporated into an existing syllabus for a research integrity or research ethics course for the treatment group. The control group will use the existing syllabus with no video simulation in class. Participants will be graduate students enrolled in these ethics courses to learn and apply the responsible conduct of research at educational institutions. Participants will fill out a demographics form to discern if they have had prior training experience in research integrity. Those who have prior training experience and those who do not have prior training experience will be randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the control group. The random assignment will be done by picking the last digit of each individual's social security number for
To answer the second question, the study will collect qualitative data from semi-structured interviews as well as focus groups. The semi-structured interviews will be conducted twice with faculty who teach the courses in the first part of the study, in person or on the phone, before and after he/she uses the video simulation. Participants for the focus groups will be selected from the students who participate in the first part of the study. The focus group will last one hour.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of meeting.
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will conduct its eighth meeting in February. At this meeting, the Commission will discuss issues of privacy and access related to human genome sequence data. The Commission will also be discussing neuroscience and related ethical issues.
The meeting will take place February 2, 2012 from 9 a.m. to approximately 5:15 p.m. and on February 3, 2012 from 9 a.m. to approximately 12 p.m.
Millberry Union, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143, (415) 476-2019.
Hillary Wicai Viers, Communications Director, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20005.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given of the eighth meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (the Commission). The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to approximately 5:15 p.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2012, and from 9 a.m. to approximately 12 p.m. on Friday, February 3, 2012, in San Francisco, California. The meeting will be open to the public with attendance limited to space available. The meeting will also be webcast at
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, HHS.
Notice of a Computer Matching Program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a), as amended, OCSE is publishing notice of a computer matching program between OCSE and state agencies administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
HHS invites interested parties to review, submit written data, comments or arguments to the agency about the matching program until February 16, 2012. As required by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(r)), HHS on January 5, 2012, sent a report of a Computer Matching Program to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Interested parties may submit written comment on this notice by writing to Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447. Comments received will be available for public inspection at this address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.
Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447, (202) 401-5439.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, provides for certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving federal benefits. The law governs the use of computer matching by federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other federal, state or local government records. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
2. Provide notification to applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching;
3. Verify information produced by such matching program before reducing, making a final denial of, suspending or terminating an individual's benefits or payments;
4. Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
5. Furnish reports about the matching program to Congress and OMB; and
6. Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Board of any Federal agency participating in a matching program.
This matching program meets these requirements.
The participating agencies are OCSE, which is the “source agency,” and state agencies administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which are the “non-federal agencies.”
The purpose of the matching program is to provide new hire, quarterly wage (QW) and unemployment insurance (UI) information from OCSE's National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to state agencies administering SNAP for the purpose of establishing or verifying the eligibility of SNAP applicants and recipients. The state agencies administering SNAP may also use the NDNH information for the purpose of updating the recipients' reported participation in work activities and updating recipients' and their employers' contact information maintained by the state agencies administering SNAP.
The authority for conducting the matching program is contained in Section 453(j)(10) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10).
The categories of individuals involved in the matching program are adult members of households that receive or have applied for SNAP benefits. The system of records maintained by OCSE from which records will be disclosed for the purpose of this matching program is the “OCSE National Directory of New Hires” (NDNH), No. 09-80-0381, last published in the
The computer matching agreement will be effective and matching activity may commence the later of the following:
(1) 30 days after this notice is published 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 March 19, 2012.
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.
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct research relating to health information. Section 903(d)(2)(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
The rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising and prescription drug promotion has affected healthcare professionals in a number of ways. First, healthcare professionals regularly encounter patients who have been exposed to DTC ads. Second, healthcare professionals also see and hear such ads directly as mass media consumers themselves. Since clarification of the adequate provision requirement for prescription drug broadcast ads in 1997, FDA has faced numerous questions about the influence of DTC pharmaceutical marketing because such advertising directly engages consumers and potentially affects interactions between patients and their physicians (Refs. 1 and 2). Those questions have grown more urgent with the growth of DTC advertising in recent years (Refs. 3 and 4). In 2002, FDA considered this form of promotion sufficiently important as a force in the physician-patient interaction that they surveyed both patients and physicians regarding their perceptions of DTC advertising (Ref. 5). Now, nearly a decade later, there are critical reasons to return to the field to gather more evidence on the influence of DTC advertising in the examination room and on the relationships between healthcare professionals and patients.
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the current healthcare environment in 2011 is the role now played by various physician extenders. Naylor and Kurtzman (Ref. 6) recently noted that nurses are the single largest group of healthcare providers in the United States and they argue that nurse practitioners will play an increasingly vital role in primary care delivery. Similarly, physician assistants also bolster the ability of our healthcare system to offer some types of care at lower cost. The aforementioned 2002 FDA study did not include nurse practitioners or physician assistants in the sample; that study focused on general practitioners and specialists in several key areas targeted by DTC advertising. Murray and colleagues (Ref. 7) also conducted a large-scale survey of U.S. physicians regarding their perceptions of DTC advertising, but they also did not include nurse practitioners or physician assistants in their sample. Because DTC advertising likely affects daily interactions between patients and nurse practitioners and physician assistants—similar to the 2002 FDA study that suggested the influence of advertising on physicians' work lives—including these groups in the new sample will further understanding of DTC advertising in the healthcare system.
Another limitation of the 2002 FDA study was the extent to which the results were nationally representative. As FDA has acknowledged, the initial set of results as reported were applicable to survey respondents but were not weighted to reflect national statistics as to the age, sex, and racial composition of the healthcare professional population. Similar to many types of surveys that have struggled in recent decades with declines in cooperation rates (Ref. 8), surveys of healthcare professionals in general often can benefit from weighting to reduce nonresponse bias. The current survey will include weighted responses from respondents that will reflect national demographic patterns.
Over the past decade, researchers have been able to better assess how DTC advertising has unfolded in the United States and determine the questions that warrant further survey work. For example, researchers have worried for a number of years that DTC advertising might produce adverse outcomes, such as clinically inappropriate patient requests for drugs or patient overestimation of the efficacy of advertised medications (Refs. 5, 7, 9, and 10). At the same time, the 2002 FDA
We propose a nationally representative sample of healthcare professionals that will yield 2,000 responses from 500 general practitioners, 500 specialists, 500 nurse practitioners, and 500 physician assistants. Such a design will help to ensure our ability to discuss not only healthcare professional perceptions generally but also to assess potential variation between different types of healthcare professionals. This sample will be recruited from a national Internet healthcare professional panel that includes over 70,000 individuals originating from the American Medical Association master file and other medical organizations. Because there are not enough individuals in this panel to satisfy the needs of the proposed project, nurse practitioners and physician assistants will be specially recruited from relevant professional organizations.
Healthcare providers are a difficult group to recruit, and so several strategies will be put into place to achieve a high response rate. These include sending prenotification letters before online invitation, lengthening the data collection period to 8 weeks (from the more typical 4 weeks), tailoring contact materials, disclosing FDA sponsorship on survey materials, and conducting reminder telephone calls. Appropriate weighting will be applied to adjust for any survey nonresponse as well as any noncoverage or undersampling and oversampling resulting from the sample design.
Participants who agree to participate will answer questions online. The survey is expected to take no longer than 20 minutes. This will be a one-time (versus annual) data collection.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: The total respondent sample for this data collection is 2,025. We will sample 25 respondents for basic programming pretesting and 2,000 respondents for the full study. We estimate the response burden to be 20 minutes, for a burden of 1,008 hours.
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. Fintor, L., “Direct-to-Consumer Marketing: How Has It Fared?,”
2. Palumbo, F.B. and C.D. Mullins, “The Development of Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Regulations,”
3. Curry, T.J., J. Jarosch, and S. Pacholok, “Are Direct to Consumer Advertisements of Prescription Drugs Educational? Comparing 1992 to 2002,”
4. Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Improvements Needed in FDA's Oversight of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising, GAO-07-54, Washington, DC: GAO, November 16, 2006.
5. Aikin, K.J., J.L. Swasy, and A.C. Braman, “Patient and Physician Attitudes and Behaviors Associated With DTC Promotion of Prescription Drugs,” Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, November 19, 2004.
6. Naylor, M.D. and E.T. Kurtman, “The Role of Nurse Practitioners in Reinventing Primary Care,”
7. Murray, E., B. Lo, L. Pollack, et al., “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising: Physicians' Views of Its Effects on Quality of Care and the Doctor-Patient Relationship,”
8. Dey, E.L., “Working With Low Survey Response Rates: The Efficacy of Weighting Adjustments,”
9. Mintzes, B., M.L. Barer, R.L. Kravitz, et al., “Influence of Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising and Patients' Requests on Prescribing Decisions: Two Site Cross Sectional Study,”
10. Mitra, A., J. Swasy, and K. Aikin, “How Do Consumers Interpret Market Leadership Claims in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs?,”
11. Donohue, J.M., M. Cevasco, and M.B. Rosenthal, “A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs,”
12. Chew, L.D., T.S. O'Young, T.K. Hazlet, et al., “A Physician Survey of the Effect of Drug Sample Availability on Physician's Behavior,”
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 March 19, 2012.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Denver Presley II, 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 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008 (ADUFA II) (Public Law 316) amended section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b) by, among other things, creating section 512(
Each report must specify: (1) The amount of each antimicrobial active ingredient by container size, strength, and dosage form; (2) quantities distributed domestically and quantities exported; and (3) a listing of the target animals, indications, and production classes that are specified on the approved label of the product. The first report under the statute was to be submitted not later than March 31, 2010. The report covered the period of the preceding calendar year and included separate information for each month of the calendar year.
We are now seeking to further implement the statutory requirements of ADUFA II and enhance its public health and safety mission as envisioned by Congress by introducing an electronic form for the submission of the required annual reports under ADUFA II. The e-form FDA 3744a will enable sponsors to submit electronically and capture all information as mandated by Section 105 of ADUFA II. Form FDA 3744 will continue to be designated for paper submissions.
List of information required on form FDA 3744 and e-form FDA 3744a:
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The total annual responses were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents times the number of responses per respondent. Total burden hours were calculated by multiplying total annual responses times the average burden per response.
As explained in the supporting statement for the subject collection of information (OMB control number 0910-0659), the initial one-time capital costs are for the design of the report. Here, e-form FDA 3744a and reporting via the Electronic Submission Gateway are provided by FDA. Thus, the remaining cost, as described in approved OMB control number 0910-0659 is $6,975 per year (3 hours × $46.50 wage rate × 50 sponsors) = $6,975. FDA believes that the sponsors already possess the computer equipment needed to prepare the report so that additional capital expenditures will not be necessary.
Total annual records were calculated by multiplying the number of recordkeepers times the number of records per recordkeeper. Total hours were calculated by multiplying total annual records times the average burden per recordkeeping.
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 401(d)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(d)(4)), notice is hereby given that the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) will host a series of meetings to enable public discussion of the Institute's proposal to reorganize its internal structure. The proposed reorganization reflects the expanding scope of NHGRI's research portfolio in response to the priorities detailed in the Institute's new strategic plan for genomics research, titled “Charting a Course for Genomic Medicine from Base Pairs to Bedside.” (Green, E.D., Guyer, M.S.
The first public meeting will be a webinar and teleconference on January 18, 2012. The second public meeting will be on February 13, 2012, during the open session of the 64th meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research. Background materials on the proposed reorganization and logistical information regarding the two public meetings are available at
February 13, 2012, at 1 p.m. EST.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed extension,
Comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2012.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Victor Kurz, Program Manager, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Public Assistance Division, (202) 646-7947 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or email address:
The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program is authorized by Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5184, and implementing regulations at 44 CFR subpart K. The Assistant Administrator may make a CDL to any local government which has suffered a substantial loss of tax or other revenues as a result of a major disaster or emergency and which demonstrates a need for Federal financial assistance in order to perform its governmental functions.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3005, facsimile number (202) 646-3347, or email address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3005, facsimile number (202) 646-3347, or email address
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 2321 Burnett Blvd., Wilmington, NC 28401, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 10, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 23014.
Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12, Intertek USA, Inc., 1114 Seaco Avenue Deer Park, TX 77536, has been accredited to test petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test this entity is accredited to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The accreditation of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial laboratory became effective on August 11, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2013.
Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Altol Petroleum Product Service, Parque Industrial Sabanetas, Edificio M-1380-01-02, Ponce, PR 00731, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as commercial gauger became effective on March 12, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for March 2013.
Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Altol Petroleum Product Service, Calle Gregorio Ledesma HN-55 Urb. Levittown, Toa Baja, PR 00949, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as commercial gauger became effective on February 26, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2013.
Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public of the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties. For the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2012, the interest rates for overpayments will be 2 percent for corporations and 3 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 3 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
Ron Wyman, Revenue Division, Collection and Refunds Branch, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; telephone (317) 614-4516.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2011-32, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2012, and ending on March 31, 2012.
For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, the following list of IRS interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties covering the period from before July of 1974 to date is published in summary format.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been 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.
The information collection is submitted by homeowners and is used by HUD to identify the items of complaint in order to help the homeowner obtain correction. The information is also used to identify builders not conforming to applicable standard and to determine eligibility for financial assistance.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0047) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: (202) 395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been 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.
The collection of the requested information requires that the sites for HUD insured structures must be free of termite hazards. Builders certify and guarantee that all required treatment for termites are performed and there is no infestation of treated areas for a year. Also, pest control companies are required to provide a record of any soil treatment methods used to prevent subterranean termite infestation. The respondents for this collection are builders, pest control companies, mortgage lenders and homebuyers.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0525) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: (202) 395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
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 (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive any written comments on or before February 16, 2012.
Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Lisa Mandell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to
Lisa Mandell, (612) 713-5343.
We invite public comment on the following permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a renewed and amended permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, Ozark big-eared bats (
The applicant requests a permit renewal and amendment to take (temporarily hold) Karner Blue Butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats in the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Proposed activities are aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats throughout the range of the species. This includes proposed work in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and gray bats throughout the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats throughout the range of the species. This includes proposed work in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats within Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal and amendment to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and gray bats throughout the States of Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and hold) mussel specimens occurring in the Mississippi and St. Croix River watersheds for scientific research. Proposed research activities are in the interest of recovery of the species, and the applicant may capture any of the following listed or proposed species: Winged mapleleaf (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Virginia big-eared bats, Ozark big-eared bats, Running buffalo clover (
As part of the same application, the applicant also requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) the following fish species:
Proposed work would take place in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities include presence/absence surveys, habitat evaluation, and other activity designed to enhance the survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Ozark big-eared bats, and Virginia big-eared bats within Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release; collect) Hine's emerald dragonfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and American burying beetle (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats within the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Ozark big-eared bats, and Virginia big-eared bats within the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats within the State of Indiana. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) the following mussel species: Clubshell, Northern riffleshell, Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel, Pink mucket pearlymussel, Rough pigtoe, Purple cat's paw pearlymussel, White cat's paw pearlymussel, Fanshell, Fat pocketbook, Higgins' eye pearlymussel, Winged mapleleaf, Scaleshell, Ring pink, and White wartyback. Proposed activities may occur within the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take Illinois Cave Amphipod (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) the Gray Wolf (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Virginia big-
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and gray bats throughout the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. The proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) the following mussel species: Clubshell, Cracking pearlymussel, Cumberland bean, Cumberland combshell, Cumberland elktoe, Dromedary pearlymussel, Dwarf wedgemussel, Fanshell, Fat Pocketbook, James spinymussel, Littlewing pearlymussel, Oyster mussel, Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel, Pink mucket pearlymussel, Purple catspaw pearlymussel, Rabbitsfoot, Rayed bean, Ring pink, Rough pigtoe, Scaleshell, Sheepnose, Spectaclecase, Snuffbox mussel, Tan riffleshell, White catspaw, and White wartyback. Proposed activities may occur within the States of Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in the
In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
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 Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before February 16, 2012.
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 email
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, and
The applicant requests a permit to import one captive-born male Aye-aye (
The applicant requests a permit to import one captive-born male snow leopard (
The applicant requests amendment to their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include the red-crowned crane (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the barashigha (
The applicant requests a permit to import chimpanzee (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
On January 4, 2012, we published a
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for leopard (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Nominations are being solicited for one position representing transportation/rights-of-way or energy and mineral development interests on the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG).
Complete nominations must be received no later than February 16, 2012.
Mail or deliver nominations to Shelley Gregory, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, WY 82941, or email to ssgregory@blm.gov.
Shelley Gregory, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, WY 82941; (307) 315-0612, ssgregory@blm.gov.
The PAWG was established by the Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) on July 27, 2000, and carried forward with the release of the ROD for the PAPA Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on September 12, 2008. The Secretary of the Interior renewed the PAWG charter on August 3, 2010.
The PAWG is a Federal Advisory Committee Act group which develops recommendations and provides advice to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management in the PAPA.
PAWG duties and responsibilities are as follows:
1. Develop recommendations for the BLM regarding matters relating to monitoring and mitigation of oil and gas development as described in the ROD for the PAPA. At the direction of the Designated Federal Officer, the PAWG may review and analyze information, recommend issues for evaluation and provide advice on the issues presented.
2. Review the implementation of construction and rehabilitation operations through an annual field inspection to provide advice to ensure that the mitigation measures are reasonable and effective.
3. Advise the BLM on working with stakeholders to develop or enhance resource management programs and objectives.
4. Make recommendations on future PAWG resource management priorities.
Nominations are being solicited for persons representing the following categories:
1. Transportation and rights-of-way interests.
2. Energy and mineral development interests.
Nomination packages should contain the following information:
1. Name of Resource Advisory Council to be Considered For
2. Specific Area of Interest Nominee Seeks to Represent
3. Full Legal Name of Nominee
4. Business Address
5. Home Address
6. Mailing Address
7. Business Phone
8. Home Phone
9. Email Address
10. Occupation/Title
11. Education
12. Work History
13. Career/Education/Experience Highlights
14. Experience or Knowledge of the Council's Geographic Area of Jurisdiction
15. Experience Working with Disparate Groups to Achieve Collaborative Solutions
16. Any BLM Permits, Leases or Licenses Held by Nominee or Employer
17. Whether or Not Nominee is a Registered Lobbyist
18. Original Signature and Date
19. Two Letters of Reference From Interests or Organizations to be Represented
20. A Current Resume
A group nominating more than one person should indicate a preferred order of appointment. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists from being appointed or re-appointed to FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils.
Members are expected to attend all scheduled PAWG meetings. Members are appointed for 2-year terms and may be reappointed to additional terms at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
Additional information about the PAWG, its membership and activities, and the nomination process can be found at:
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the coal reserves in the lands described below in Musselshell County, Montana, will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.
The lease sale will be held at 11 a.m. on February 28, 2012. Sealed bids must be submitted on or before 10 a.m. on February 28, 2012.
The lease sale will be held in the 920 Conference Room of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Greg Fesko by telephone at (406) 896-5080 or by email at
This sale is being held in response to a lease by application (LBA) filed by Signal Peak Energy LLC. The Federal coal resource to be offered consists of all reserves recoverable by underground mining methods in the following described lands:
Containing 2,679.86 acres, more or less, in Musselshell County, Montana.
The tract (LBA MTM 97988) contains an estimated 35.5 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The tract's coal reserves average 12.4 feet in thickness, 9,735 BTU per pound in heating value, 9.64 percent ash, and 0.87 percent sulfur content. The coal reserves to be offered are based on mining the Mammoth coal seam described in the proposed action in the Environmental Assessment and consists of all reserves recoverable by underground mining methods. The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value of the tract. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. No bid that is less than $100 per acre, or fraction thereof, will be considered. The minimum bid is not intended to represent fair market value. The fair market value will be determined by the authorized officer after the sale.
Sealed bids clearly marked “Sealed Bid for MTM 97988 Coal Sale—Not to be opened before 11 a.m. on February 28, 2012” must be submitted to the Cashier, BLM Montana State Office, at the address given above.
Prior to lease issuance, the high bidder, if other than the applicant, must pay to the BLM the cost recovery fees in the amount of $132,739 in addition to all processing costs the BLM incurs after the date of this sale notice (43 CFR 3473.2).
The bids should be sent by certified mail, return-receipt requested, or be hand delivered. The cashier will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered bid. Bids received after 10 a.m. on February 28, 2012, will not be considered. If identical high bids are received, the tying high bidders will be requested to submit follow-up sealed bids until a high bid is received. All tie-breaking sealed-bids must be submitted within 15 minutes following the sale official's announcement at the sale that identical high bids have been received. A lease issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty payable to the United States of 12.5 percent of the value of coal mined by surface methods and 8.0 percent of the value of coal mined by underground methods. Bidding instructions for the tract offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are included in the Detailed Statement of Lease Sale. Copies of the statement and the proposed coal lease are available at the Montana State Office. Case file MTM 97988 is also available
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal. The Secretary of the Interior signed the ROD on January 9, 2012, which constitutes the final decision of the Department of the Interior.
Copies of the ROD are available upon request from the State Director, Arizona State Office, One N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ, or via the Internet at
Chris Horyza, Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427, (602) 417-9446, email
The Final EIS for the Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal was released and made available for a 30-day public availability period on October 28, 2011. The final EIS documents the effects of withdrawing from location and entry under the General Mining Law 1,006,545 acres of Federal land and interests in land in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon, Arizona for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. The withdrawal would also apply to lands subsequently acquired by the United States within the boundaries of the withdrawal. The Resource Management Plan for the Arizona Strip Field Office and Forest plans for the Kaibab National Forest would be amended to reflect the intent of the withdrawal. Based on the analysis in the Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal EIS, and as set forth in the ROD, the Department of the Interior has decided a withdrawal of 1,006,545 acres from location and entry under the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights and in accordance with the preferred alternative is warranted. Unpatented mining claims with valid existing rights and private lands will not be affected.
The Record of Decision constitutes the final decision of the Secretary of Interior. There is no administrative protest or appeal from a decision of the Secretary.
40 CFR 1506.6, 43 CFR part 2310.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will hold a meeting via conference call. Designated through an amendment to the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241), the trail consists of “a series of water routes extending approximately 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in the States of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and in the District of Columbia,” tracing the 1607-1609 voyages of Captain John Smith to chart the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay. This meeting is available to the public through a toll-free call-in number. Preregistration is required to receive call-in information. Any individual who wishes to participate in the call or provide public comment should register prior to February 1, 2012 via email at
The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council will meet from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesday, February 1, 2012.
The meeting will convene via conference call at 1 p.m. on February 1, 2012. For more information, please contact the NPS Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue Suite 314, Annapolis, MD 21403.
Christine Lucero, Partnership Coordinator for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, telephone: (757) 258-8914 or email:
Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this notice announces a meeting of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council for the purpose of reviewing the land conservation strategy of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail.
The Committee meeting is available to the public through a toll-free call-in number. Preregistration is required to receive call-in information. Any individual who wishes to participate in the call or provide public comment should register prior to February 1, 2012 via email at
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing its intention to request approval for the collection of information for OSM's call for nominations for its Excellence in Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Awards and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Awards.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by March 19, 2012, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 203-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783 or by email at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSM will be submitting to OMB for approval. The collection is for nominations to OSM's Excellence in Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Awards and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Awards. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.
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. Since this is a new information collection request, OSM is seeking new OMB control number. Responses are voluntary.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey, the antidumping duty orders on welded carbon steel pipe and tube from India, Thailand, and Turkey, the antidumping duty orders on circular welded nonalloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan, and the antidumping duty order on small diameter carbon steel pipe and tube from Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Nathanael Comly (202) 205-3174, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On December 14, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a case captioned
In this action the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), and the State of Illinois sought penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (“Defendant”) relating to discharges from its combined sewer outfalls (“CSOs”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the following CSO-related provisions of its
The proposed Consent Decree between Defendant, the United States, and the State of Illinois requires the following: (1) A schedule for completion of the Tunnel and Reservoir Program (“TARP”), the long term control plan to increase Defendant's capacity to handle wet weather events and address CSO discharges in Chicago area waterways; (2) a plan to control floatables in such waterways; (3) post construction monitoring following completion of TARP; (4) payment of a civil penalty of $675,000, of which $350,000 will be paid to the United States and $325,000 to the State of Illinois; and (5) a green infrastructure program to reduce CSO discharges, localized flooding and stormwater impacts.
In a
60-Day Notice of Information Collection.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until March 19, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact John Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25405,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Each licensed firearms manufacturer or licensed firearm importer must legibly identify each firearm by engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing on the frame or receiver an individual serial number. Also, ATF requires minimum height and depth requirements for identification markings placed on firearms.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34 (a), this is notice that on June 28, 2011, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78665-2402, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of analytical reference standards.
In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments, objections, or requests for any hearings will be accepted on any application for registration or re-registration to import crude opium, poppy straw, concentrate of poppy straw, and coca leaves. As explained in the Correction to Notice of Application pertaining to Rhodes Technologies, 72 FR 3417 (2007), comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I or II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on June 28, 2011, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78665-2402, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances to make reference standards which will be distributed to their customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than March 19, 2012.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on November 8, 2011, Siegfried (USA), 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than March 19, 2012.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 6, 2011 Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Regarding the drug code (8333), the company plans to use this controlled substance to manufacture another controlled substance.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than March 19, 2012.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 12, 2011, Johnson Matthey, Inc., Pharmaceuticals Materials, 900 River Road, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale in bulk to its customers. The Thebaine (9333) will also be used to manufacture other controlled substances in bulk which will also be for sale in bulk to its customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than March 19, 2012.
By Notice dated August 9, 2011, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for distribution to its customers.
In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Austin Pharma LLC. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Austin Pharma LLC. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated August 10, 2011, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development and for distribution to its customers.
In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement.
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is seeking applications for the revision of its Jail Resource Management training program. The project will be for a 9-month period and will be carried out in conjunction with the NIC Jails Division. The awardee will work closely with NIC staff on all aspects of the project. To be considered, applicants must demonstrate, at a minimum, in-depth knowledge of (1) the purpose, functions, and operational complexities of local jails, (2) budget issues common in jails, (3) analysis of jail resource needs, (4) development and presentation of a budget request to appropriate governing bodies, (5) budget management, and (6) the resource constraints faced by many local governments and their jails. Also, the applicant must demonstrate expertise and experience in developing curricula based on adult learning principles, specifically the Instructional Theory into Practice (ITIP) model.
Applications must be received by 4 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, February 9, 2012.
Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street NW., Room 5002, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date as mail at NIC is sometimes delayed due to security screening.
Applicants who wish to hand-deliver their applications should bring them to 500 First Street NW., Washington, DC 20534, and dial (202) 307-3106, ext. 0, at the front desk for pickup.
Faxed or emailed applications will not be accepted; however, electronic applications can be submitted via
A copy of this announcement and the required application forms can be downloaded from the NIC Web site at
Questions about this project and the application procedures should be directed to Erika McDuffe, Correctional Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections. Questions must be emailed to Ms. McDuffe at
Program participants are primarily sheriffs and administrators from smaller jails who have no specialized fiscal management staff. Most have no formally established mechanisms to identify, document, track, justify, or present resource needs. As a result, their jails often receive budget allocations that are inadequate to maintain a safe and secure jail.
NIC wishes to update the content of Jail Resource Management and ensure its design conforms to the ITIP model. The following reference materials are posted with this announcement on NIC's Web site: Jail Resource Management: Lesson Plans; Jail Resource Management: Participant Manual; Jail Resource Management: Presentation Slides; Jail Resource Management: Activities.
Curriculum review meeting with NIC staff: After becoming familiar with the curriculum, the awardee (project director, subject matter experts, and curriculum specialist) will meet with NIC staff for 3 days in Washington, DC, to discuss the program's goal, audience, and design. The awardee and NIC staff will identify needed revisions to content, instructional strategies, presentation slides, the participant manual, and other training materials.
In the cooperative agreement application, the awardee is required to project milestones and dates for the completion of all project activities. Based on the decisions made during the initial meeting, the awardee and NIC staff may set additional dates for completion of specific activities.
The awardee will document primary discussion points and all decisions made during the meeting and will give NIC this documentation within 2 weeks of the meeting.
Draft revisions and NIC review: Based on decisions made during the initial meeting, the awardee will draft revisions to the curriculum. Lesson plan revisions will be completed first. The awardee will send revised lesson plans to NIC staff for review and approval before any other materials are developed. Once the lesson plans are approved, the awardee will draft revisions to the presentation slides and participant manual. The awardee will also send these draft revisions to NIC staff for review and approval. Finally, the awardee will draft participant evaluation forms to be completed after each module and at the end of the program and will send these to NIC staff for approval.
The awardee will also pay fees and expenses for the project director and curriculum specialist, both of whom are required to attend the entire program. If qualified, the project director or others on the cooperative agreement team may be included among the trainers.
The awardee will print all program materials for the instructors and the participants and will assume all costs. The awardee will send one full set of these materials to NIC staff prior to the program for approval.
During the pilot, the awardee, curriculum specialist, and trainers will meet regularly with NIC staff to discuss their observations about the revised program and the participants' response. They will also review and discuss the module evaluations each day.
The awardee will document the main discussion points and decisions from these meetings. The awardee will also summarize all participant evaluations (module and end-of-program). The awardee will submit the documentation of the meetings, the evaluation summaries, and all participant evaluations to NIC within 2 weeks after the program.
Applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced, and reference the NIC application number and title referenced in this announcement. If you are hand delivering or submitting via Fed-Ex, please include an original and three copies of your full proposal (program and budget narrative, application forms, assurances, and other descriptions). The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. Electronic submissions will be accepted only via
The narrative portion of the application should include, at a minimum a brief paragraph indicating the applicant's understanding of the project's purpose; a brief paragraph that summarizes the project goals and objectives; a clear description of the methodology that will be used to complete the project and achieve its goals; a statement or chart of measurable project milestones and timelines for the completion of each milestone; a description of the qualifications of the applicant organization and a resume for the principal and each staff member assigned to the project (including instructors) that documents relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities to complete the project; and a budget that details all costs for the project, shows consideration for all contingencies for the project, and notes a commitment to work within the proposed budget.
In addition to the narrative and attachments, the applicant must submit only one full curriculum developed by the primary curriculum developer named in the application. This curriculum must be in ITIP format and include lesson plans, presentation slides, and a participant manual, at a minimum.
Pub. L. 93-415.
Is there a clear understanding of the purpose of the project and the nature and scope of project activities? Does the applicant give a clear and complete description of all work required to complete this project? Does the applicant specify project objectives, tasks, and milestones? Are the roles and the time required of project staff clearly defined?
Is there a description of the background and expertise of all project personnel as they relate to this project? Does the applicant have an established reputation or skill that makes the applicant particularly well qualified for the project?
Does the application provide adequate cost detail to support the proposed budget? Does the application include a chart that aligns the budget with project activities along a timeline with, at minimum, quarterly benchmarks? In terms of program value, is the estimated cost reasonable in relation to work performed and project products?
Does the sample curriculum include all components specified in the RFP (lesson plans, presentation slides, and participant manual)? Are the lesson plans designed according to the ITIP model? Are the lesson plans detailed, clear, and well written (spelling, grammar, punctuation)? Is the participant manual clear, and does it follow the lesson plans?
NIC will NOT award a cooperative agreement to an applicant who does not have a Dun and Bradstreet Database Universal Number (DUNS) and is not registered in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Applicants can obtain a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (800) 333-0505. Applicants who are sole proprietors should dial (866) 705-5711 and select option #1.
Applicants may register in the CCR online at the CCR Web site at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Monday, February 27, 2012, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Room 8H40, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452, fax (202) 358-4118, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
The proposed amendment would have modified the Renewed FOL by deleting references to specific Safety Evaluation Reports, Technical Specification Amendments, and Exemptions from License Condition 2.C(3), Fire Protection, and replacing them with the words “as supplemented.”
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 13, 2011, and the licensee's letter dated January 4, 2012, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the ADAMS in the NRC Library at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2012 will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”);
The Exchange proposes to modify the fees applicable to trading on the NASDAQ OMX PSX system (“PSX”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to modify order routing fees applicable to the use of PSX's PMOP routing strategy. PMOP is a routing option under which an incoming order routes only to Protected Quotations (as defined in SEC Rule 600 under Regulation NMS),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is equitable. All similarly situated members are subject to the same fee structure, and access to Phlx is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms; specifically, the same routing fee, credit or pass through fee applies to any participant and does not differ based on user type (
Furthermore, the new routing fees are reasonable and equitable in that the decision to send routable orders and to use PHLX as a router is entirely voluntarily; members can avail themselves of numerous other means of directing orders to other venues, including becoming members of those markets or using any of a number of competitive routing services offered by other exchanges and brokers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may readily favor the Exchange's competitors in making order routing decisions to the extent that they deem PSX's fees to be excessive. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition through its use of reduced fees to draw greater order flow to PSX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2011-186. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA” or the “Exchange”), proposes to amend EDGA Rule 1.5(q) to change the starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 7 a.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) to 8 a.m. ET. The Exchange proposes to make a conforming amendment to Rule 14.1(c)(2) to change the reference for the starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 7 a.m. ET to 8 a.m. ET. Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text from SR-EDGA-2011-28,
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange filed a rule change to amend EDGA Rule 1.5(q) to change the starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 8 a.m. ET to 7 a.m. ET.
At this time, the Exchange has not implemented the 7 a.m. ET starting time for the Pre-Opening Session because it has not notified its Members pursuant to the language in the August 25 Rule Filing.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.5(q) and make a conforming amendment to Rule 14.1(c)(2) to change the starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 7 a.m. ET back to 8 a.m. ET as it appeared before the August 25 Rule Filing.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2011-41 and should be submitted on or before February 7, 2012.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed. 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 establish fees for the NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed.
The proposed fees for the NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed are as follows:
The Exchange notes that the three existing data feed products (NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca Trades, and ArcaBook) would continue to be available to vendors and subscribers separately at the same prices at which they are currently available.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The existence of alternatives to the NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.
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. An exchange's ability to price its data feed products is constrained by (1) competition among exchanges and other trading platforms that compete with one another in a variety of dimensions, (2) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and free delayed consolidated data, and (3) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market.
It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. As a recent Commission Concept Release noted, the “current market structure can be described as dispersed and complex” with “trading volume * * * dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks” and “trading centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to attract different types of market participants with varying trading needs.”
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary market data. The U.S. Department of Justice recently acknowledged the aggressive competition among exchanges. In announcing the abandoned bid for NYSE Euronext by NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc., Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney stated that exchanges “compete head to head to offer real-time equity data products. These data products include the best bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade, including the last sale.”
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality, and price and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions. The Exchange notes in that respect that the NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed would provide greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers, including high-frequency traders, that otherwise would have to integrate the data feeds manually.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer decreases for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the product will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
Similarly, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue.
Other market participants have noted that the liquidity provided by the order book, trade execution, core market data, and non-core market data are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
That large market participants, including internalizers handling retail order flow, use proprietary exchange feeds (rather than CTS and CQS feeds) to make trade and routing decisions further demonstrates the joint nature of market data and order flow.
The Exchange believes that retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. The Exchange and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully. Moreover, the Exchange believes that products can enhance order flow to the Exchange by providing more widespread distribution of information about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with access to the Internet or television. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls because the products contain less content.
Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or provide information free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (“TRFs”) compete to attract internalized transaction reports.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Because investors can thus find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data products, a market that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that investors may substitute another source of market information for its own because securities and investment methodologies are fungible.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. Today, BATS has represented that it publishes its market data at no charge on its Web site in order to attract more order flow, and it uses market data revenue rebates that it can provide from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for its users.
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market data fees, the change may affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected market participants will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere, thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data, or simply not purchase the data.
In establishing the price for the NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of alternatives to the Exchange's product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds at a lower price, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the acceptance of data feed products in the marketplace demonstrates the consistency of these fees with applicable statutory standards.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to modify Rule 7050, governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to amend the applicability of the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity for the Penny Pilot
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ proposes to modify Exchange Rule 7050 governing the rebates and fees assessed for option orders entered into NOM. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to modify the six tier structure for paying Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange proposes to reduce the tiers to four tiers and further incentivize NOM Participants to route Customer orders to the Exchange by paying an additional rebate for certain orders after the NOM Participant has met a volume criteria. The Exchange believes that incentivizing NOM Participants to send additional Customer orders to the Exchange will benefit all market participants by adding liquidity to the market.
Specifically, the Exchange currently pays a Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options based on the following tier structure:
The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options to a four tier structure as follows:
Currently, Tier 1 firms that add up to 24,999 contracts per day in a month of liquidity receive a rebate of $0.26 per contract. The Exchange is proposing to amend Tier 1 to cover up to 49,999 contracts per day in a month, and to pay the same $0.26 per contract rebate. Based on past experience, the Exchange anticipates that all firms currently receiving the $0.26 rebate will maintain their current level of rebate.
Currently, Tier 2 firms that add between 25,000 and 59,999 contracts per day in a month receive a rebate of $0.36 per contract. The Exchange is proposing to amend Tier 2 to cover 50,000 or more contracts per day in a month, and to pay a rebate of $0.42 per contract. As a result, firms that currently contribute between 25,000 and 49,999 per day of liquidity in Customer contracts will receive a lower rebate (down from $0.36 to $0.26 per contract). However, firms that contribute between
Currently, Tier 3 firms that add between 60,000 and 124,999 contracts per day in a month receive a rebate of $0.38 per contract. This tier is being eliminated. NOM Participants who previously qualified for Tier 3 would now qualify for Tier 2, which is now 50,000 or more contracts, and would receive a higher rebate in Tier 2 (up from $0.38 to $0.42 per contract).
Currently, Tier 4 firms that add 125,000 contracts or more per day in a month receive a rebate of $0.40 per contract. This tier is being eliminated. NOM Participants who previously qualified for Tier 4 would now qualify for Tier 2, which is now 50,000 or more contracts, and would receive a higher rebate in Tier 2 rebate (up from $0.40 to $0.42 per contract).
Currently, Tier 5 firms that (1) provide 60,000 or more contracts per day in a month of Customer order liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, and (2) provide 60,000 or more contracts per day of NOM Market Maker liquidity receive a rebate of $0.40 per contract if both criteria are met. For purposes of determining qualification for this tier, the Exchange aggregates
Currently, Tier 6 firms that (1) provide 25,000 or more contracts per day in a month of Customer order liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, and (2) simultaneously qualify for credit under the Investor Support Program (“ISP”) as set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7014
The Exchange also proposes to further incentivize those NOM Participants that qualify for proposed Tiers 2, 3 and 4 by offering to pay an additional $0.01 per contract rebate on each Customer order of 5,000 or more, displayed or non-displayed contracts, which adds liquidity in a Penny Pilot Option, as long as that NOM Participant has qualified for a rebate in Tier 2, 3 or 4 for that month. This would be in addition to the rebate for the qualifying tier.
The Exchange is not otherwise amending the Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed new pricing tiers are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they continue an existing program
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the increased rebates would further incentivize firms to continue to send more Customer volume to the Exchange. Today, the Exchange pays any Customer order up to 24,999 contracts per day in a given month a rebate of $0.26 per contract for adding liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange would continue to pay this same rebate, but would pay such a rebate for any Customer order up to 49,999 contracts per day in a given month that adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. This would result in a decreased rebate to certain Participants that currently qualify for Tier 2. The Exchange believes that this increase in the number of Customer orders that qualify for Tier 1 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Customer orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot Options have the ability to earn the rebate; there is no minimum order requirement. Also, all NOM Participants transacting Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options are eligible to receive this rebate. The Exchange currently pays a higher rebate for Tier 2 Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options between 25,000 and 59,999 contracts per day in a given month of $0.36 per contract. The Exchange believes that offering the Tier 1 rebate up to 49,999 contracts per day and starting the Tier 2 rebate at 50,000 Customer contracts per day would encourage NOM Participants to send a greater number of Customer orders to the Exchange to obtain the increased rebate of $0.42 per contract.
The Exchange believes that amending Tier 2 from between 25,000 and 59,999 Customer orders per day in a given month to 50,000 or more Customer contracts per day in a given month (capturing those Customer contracts between 50,000 and 59,999) is reasonable because the Exchange is also offering a higher rebate of $0.42 per contract, an increase from the current $0.36 per contract. The Exchange believes that simplifying the current Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which have no other qualifier than Customer volume, down to two tiers and offering a higher rebate of $0.42 per contract for any Customer order volume over 50,000 contracts per day in a given month, in Penny Pilot Options, would allow a greater number of NOM Participants to obtain a higher rebate. Those NOM Participants that currently qualify for Tiers 3 and 4 would be eligible for a higher rebate and a portion of those NOM Participants that currently qualify for Tier 2 would be eligible for the higher rebate. The Exchange believes that for these reasons, the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange also proposes to amend current Tier 5, which would be renamed Tier 3, to increase the number of Customer contracts from 60,000 to 100,000 contracts per day in a given month and also decrease the second qualifier, concerning NOM Market Maker liquidity, from 60,000 to 40,000 per day in a given month. The Exchange believes that this amendment is reasonable because the Exchange is seeking to incentivize NOM Participants to transact a greater number of Customer orders. By increasing the number of Customer orders to 100,000 per day and lowering the second qualifier on Market Maker liquidity to 40,000 per day the Exchange desires to further incentivize NOM Participants to send additional Customer order flow, in Penny Pilot Options, to the Exchange and provide incentives for Market Makers to increase liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all NOM participants. The Exchange believes that Broker Dealers that make markets and also route Customer order flow to the Exchange today, would be incentivized to meet the new criteria and qualify for Tier 3 because of the lower Market Maker liquidity volume and the increased rebate. The Exchange proposes to increase the rebate from $0.40 per contract to $0.43 per contract in order to incentivize NOM Participants that also route Customer order flow to register to make markets on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this newly named Tier 3 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants. The Exchange has set a reasonable goal of 40,000 or more contracts per day of Market Maker liquidity on NOM, an achievable goal that should encourage increased Market Maker registration and liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that paying an increased rebate of $0.43 per contract ($0.01 per contract higher than Tier 2) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because increased Market Maker liquidity would, in turn, improve the amount of liquidity available on the Exchange and improve the quality of order interaction and executions on the Exchange.
The Exchange also proposes to amend current Tier 6, which would be renamed Tier 4, to increase the rebate from $0.37 per contract to $0.40 per contract to incentivize NOM Participants to transact additional Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options and encourage participants in the Exchange's equity markets to also participate in the Exchange's options market. The Exchange believes that this proposed amendment is reasonable because the Exchange seeks to incentivize NOM Participants to transact a greater number of Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to allow NOM Participants with a certain amount of Customer orders, to qualify for a Customer rebate by allowing a related NASDAQ member, under common ownership, to qualify for the rebate as specified herein. The Exchange also believes that the amendments to the newly named Tier 4 criteria, namely 25,000 or more Customer contracts, has certified for ISP and executed at least one order on NASDAQ's equity market, are reasonable because, as stated above, the Exchange believes that this proposal would incentivize NOM Participants to transact additional Customer orders and encourage participants in the Exchange's equity markets to also participate in the Exchange's options market. The Exchange believes this would encourage participants in the Exchange's equity markets to also participate in the Exchange's options market particularly because the
The Exchange believes that the requirement to certify in combination with requiring the Participant to execute at least one order on NASDAQ's equity market would promote the submission of liquidity-providing orders to NASDAQ. The ISP encourages members to add targeted liquidity that is executed in the NASDAQ Market Center. The Exchange believes that the ISP promotes submission of liquidity-providing orders to NASDAQ, which would benefit all NASDAQ members and all investors. By allowing members to certify under Rule 7014, while also meeting the volume criteria of 25,000 or more Customer contracts in Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange believes that the proposal would encourage greater participation in the options market. The Exchange believes that increased rebate and the amended criteria for newly named Tier 4 are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because together these amendments are intended to encourage increased activity in both the NASDAQ Options Market and in the ISP of the NASDAQ equity market. The goal of the ISP is to incentivize members
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer a rebate of $0.01 per contract on each Customer order of 5,000 or more displayed or non-displayed contracts, which adds liquidity in a Penny Pilot Option, as long as that NOM Participant has qualified for a rebate in Tier 2, 3 or 4 for that month. This $0.01 per contract rebate would be in addition to the rebate for the qualifying tier. The Exchange believes that this enhanced incentive will encourage NOM Participants to send larger orders to the Exchange, which in turn would also assist those Participants that send Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options to earn higher rebates by qualifying for a higher tier as well as bringing additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that limiting the enhanced $0.01 per contract rebate to firms already qualifying for Tiers 3, 4 or 5 (and not those that qualify for Tier 1) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because generally NOM Participants in Tier 1 today are not sending Customer orders of 5,000 or more contracts. If those Participants in Tier 1 sent ten Customer orders of 5,000 or more per day in a given month to the Exchange, they would qualify for Tier 2 and would be paid the additional enhanced rebate. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to incentivize those NOM Participants that qualify for higher volume tiers as they are the most likely to obtain the enhanced rebate and continue to send larger orders, which provides more liquidity to the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange would pay the enhanced rebate uniformly to those NOM Participants that qualify for Tiers 2, 3 or 4 and meet the Customer order volume discussed herein for Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive or rebate opportunities to be inadequate. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate scheme is competitive and similar to other rebates and tiers opportunities in place on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace materially impacts the rebates present on the Exchange today and substantially influenced the proposal set forth above.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email 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.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of the Charter Renewal for the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel.
Notice is hereby given that on January 6, 2012; our Commissioner renewed the Charter for the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (Panel). This discretionary Panel will provide independent advice and recommendations on plans and activities to create an occupational information system (OIS) tailored specifically for our disability programs and adjudicative needs. We require advice and recommendations on the use of occupational information in our disability programs and the research design of the OIS, including the development and testing of an OIS content model and taxonomy, work analysis instrumentation, sampling, and data collection and analysis.
Membership includes professionals from academia, private sector, and public entities, (
The Panel will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The charter was filed with the appropriate congressional committees.
For further information contact, Ms. Leola S. Brooks, Designated Federal Officer, Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard 3-E-26 Richard Ball Building, Baltimore, MD 21235-0001. Fax to (410) 597-0825, or Email to
Department of State.
Notice of renewal of the Advisory Committee charter.
For further information, please contact Dennis Delehanty, Office of Global Systems (IO/GS), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-4197.
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 a list of the exhibit objects, 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.
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 a list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and to the extent authorized by law, I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security the authorities and functions delegated to the Secretary of State pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum of November 2, 2011, specifically:
(1) The authority to make the annual certification specified in section (a)(2)(A) of the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the New START Treaty (the Resolution); with the Director of National Intelligence, at the direction of the President, preparing the report specified in that section. The Under Secretary shall submit the certification along with the report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence to the Senate.
(2) The authority to submit the reports specified in section (a)(10) and section (a)(12)(B) of the Resolution to the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services of the Senate.
Any act, executive order, regulation or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation or procedure as amended from time to time. Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
Application of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. notifying the Department, pursuant to the requirements of 14 CFR 215.4, of a change in the carrier's name to “ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.” and requesting the reissuance of its certificates of public convenience and necessity and other economic authorities and requests that the trade names “ASA,” “Atlantic Southeast,” and “Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc.” be registered for use in its operations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA, NextGen Advisory Committee.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the fifth meeting of RTCA, NextGen Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be held February 3, 2012, from 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Florida NextGen Test Bed, 557 Innovation Way, Daytona Beach, FL 32114.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036: or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given for a NextGen Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda will include the following:
• Welcome and Introductions—Chairman Dave Barger, President and CEO, JetBlue Airways
• Official Statement of Designated Federal Official, Michael Huerta, FAA Administrator (Acting)
• Review and approval of September 29, 2011 meeting summary/NACSC TORs Revisions
• Chairman's Report—Chairman Barger
• Subcommittee Report: NAC Subcommittee & Work Groups—Subcommittee Co-Chairs—Steve Brown, Senior Vice President, Operations and Administration, National Business Aviation Association/Tom Hendricks, Senior Vice President, Safety, Security and Operations, Air Transport Association
• Break
• Review and Approve Recommendation for Submission to FAA
•
• Lunch Break
• Review and Approve Recommendations for Submission to FAA
•
• Afternoon Break
• Review and Approve Recommendations for Submission to FAA
•
• Other Business/Anticipated Issues for NAC Consideration and Action at the next Meeting on May 24, 2012 in Seattle, Washington
• 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the seventeenth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).
The meeting will be held February 7-9, 2012, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Universal Avionics Systems Corporation, 3260 E. Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS). The agenda will include the following:
• Introductions and Administrative Items
• Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
• Introductions and administrative items
• Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
• ED-179B status and update
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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 216: Aeronautical Systems Security (Joint meeting with EUROCAE WG-72).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the eighteenth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 216: Aeronautical Systems Security (Joint meeting with EUROCAE WG-72).
The meeting will be held February 14-17, 2012, from 9 a.m.—5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at GE Aviation, Gateway Office, 3925 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100, Pinellas Park, Florida 33872.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 216, Aeronautical Systems Security (Joint meeting with EUROCAE WG-72). The agenda will include the following:
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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access Control Systems.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the eleventh meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access Control Systems.
The meeting will be held February 9, 2012, from 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access Control Systems. The agenda will include the following:
• Welcome, Introductions, and Administrative Remarks
• Review and approve summary from tenth plenary meeting
• Updates from the TSA and SIA
• Discussion of PMC response to committee recommendation
• Planning for next version development
• Time and Place of Next Meeting
• Any Other Business
• 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
In accordance with part 211 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated December 21, 2011, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), on behalf of its member railroads, has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a 2-year extension of the waivers of the hours of service requirements at 49 U.S.C. 21103(A)(4)(a), which were granted on March 5, 2010 (for 6-day per week regular schedules), and November 22, 2011 (for 5-day per week regular schedules with an occasional sixth work day).
In its petition, ASLRRA seeks to extend the waivers that granted relief
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 2, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
In further compliance with the PRA, the agency now publishes this second notice announcing the submission of its proposed collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and notifying the public about how to submit comments on the proposed collection to OMB during the 30-day comment period.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance Number. It is requested, but not required, that 2 copies of the comment be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Ann Burton, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-492, NTI-200, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Burton's telephone number is (202) 366-2685. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first 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;
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 asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information:
(1)
(2)
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Request for Nominations to the Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics (ACTS).
The BTS solicits nominations for interested persons to serve on the ACTS. The ACTS is composed of BTS stakeholders who advise the Director on the quality, reliability, consistency, objectivity, and relevance of transportation statistics and analyses collected, supported, or disseminated by the BTS and DOT.
Nominations for the ACTS must be received on or before January 27, 2012.
Deborah D. Johnson, ACTS Liaison at the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room E34-316, Washington, DC 20590 at (202) 366-8578 or email at
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240), directed the Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to establish an advisory Council on Transportation Statistics. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) codified the requirement for the ACTS in 49 U.S.C. Section 111 (See Section 5601 of SAFETEA-LU). The functions of the ACTS are to: (1) Advise the Director on the quality, reliability, consistency, objectivity, and relevance of transportation statistics and analyses collected, supported, or disseminated by BTS and DOT; (2) provide input to and review the congressional report required by 49 U.S.C. Section 111(d)(4); and (3) advise the Director of BTS on methods to encourage cooperation and interoperability of transportation data collected by BTS, the operating administrations of DOT, States, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and private sector entities
Committee members must not be officers or employees of the Federal Government and serve without pay on staggered 3-year terms. The Director may allow a member, when attending meetings of the Committee or a subcommittee, reimbursement of expenses authorized under Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code and the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 CFR part 301, relating to per diem, travel, and transportation.
The President's Memorandum of June 18, 2010, concerning lobbyists on Agency boards and commissions (75 FR 35995, 6/23/10) directed the heads of Executive departments and agencies not to make any new appointments or reappointments of federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards and commissions. Pursuant to the President's directive, BTS will not consider for appointment to the ACTS any individual who is subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. 1605).
The Designated Federal Officer anticipates calling Committee meetings approximately twice each year. Meetings are open to the general public, except as provided under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.). Notice of each meeting is published in the
The BTS seeks nominations for membership to the ACTS from among its stakeholder groups. The ACTS is composed of not fewer than nine and not more than 11 members appointed by the BTS Director, who are not officers or employees of the United States. Each member shall have expertise in transportation data collection or analysis or application; except that one member shall have expertise in economics, one member shall have expertise in statistics, and one member shall have experience in transportation safety. At least one member shall be a senior official of a State department of transportation. Members shall include representation of a cross-section of transportation community stakeholders.
The Agency is required under FACA to appoint members of diverse views and interests to ensure the committee is balanced with appropriate consideration of background. All Committee members must be able to attend at least one meeting each year in person or by teleconference. Interested persons should have a commitment to improving transportation statistics and have knowledge of transportation
Nominations should be submitted to Deborah Johnson at the address given in the
Nominations must be received on or before January 27, 2012.
The Department of the Treasury will submit 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, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 16, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to the (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing on OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons the names of ten newly-designated entities, along with one individual, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC, pursuant to Executive Order 13382, of the ten entities and one individual identified in this notice was effective on December 20, 2011.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: (202) 622-2490, Office of Foreign Assets Control; Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: (202) 622-4855, Office of Foreign Assets Control; or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: (202) 622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site
On June 28, 2005, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and
On December 20, 2011, the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Justice, and other relevant agencies, designated ten entities and one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382.
The list of additional designees is as follows:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of three individuals whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the three individuals identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on January 10, 2012.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or
On January 10, 2012, the Director of OFAC designated the following three individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. Electronically—104,262 hours.
b. Paper copy—55,855 hours.
c. Electronically—8 minutes.
d. Paper copy—10 minutes.
a. Electronically—781,967.
b. Paper copy—335,129.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 19, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870 or FAX (202) 273-9381.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. Inpatient Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-2—18,750 hours.
b. Ambulatory Care Long Form, VA Form 10-1465-3—9,802 hours.
c. Ambulatory Care Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-4—42,233 hours.
d. Clinician and Group Survey Patient Centered Medical Home, Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-5.—20,000 hours.
e. Clinician and Group Survey Patient Centered Medical Home, Long Form, VA Form 10-1465-6—3,333 hours.
a. Inpatient Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-2—15 minutes.
b. Ambulatory Care Long Form, VA Form 10-1465-3—25 minutes.
c. Ambulatory Care Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-4—20 minutes.
d. Clinician and Group Survey Patient Centered Medical Home, Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-5—15 minutes.
e. Clinician and Group Survey Patient Centered Medical Home, Long Form, VA Form 10-1465-6—25 minutes.
a. Inpatient Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-2—75,000.
b. Ambulatory Care Long Form, VA Form 10-1465-3—23,524.
c. Ambulatory Care Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-4—126,700.
d. Clinician and Group Survey Patient Centered Medical Home, Short Form, VA Form 10-1465-5—20,000.
e. Clinician and Group Survey Patient Centered Medical Home, Long Form, VA Form 10-1465-6—3,333.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461-9769 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. Electronically—8,709 hours.
b. Paper Copy—27,095 hours.
a. Electronically—15 minutes.
b. Paper Copy—20 minutes.
a. Electronically—34,836.
b. Paper Copy—81,284.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
a. Application for Work-Study Allowance, VA Form 22-8691.
b. Student Work-Study Agreement (Advance Payment), VA Form 22-8692.
c. Extended Student Work-Study Agreement, VA Form 22-8692a.
d. Work-Study Agreement, VA Form 22-8692b.
a. VA Form 22-8691 is used by claimants to apply for work-study benefits.
b. VA Form 22-8692 is used to request an advance payment of work-study allowance.
c. VA Form 22-8692a is used by a claimant to extend his or her work-study contract.
d. VA Form 22-8692b is used by claimants who do not want a work-study advanced allowance payment.
The data collected is used to determine an applicant's eligibility for work-study allowance and the amount payable.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. VA Form 22-8691—4,350 hours.
b. VA Form 22-8692—608 hours.
c. VA Form 22-8692a—25 hours.
d. VA Form 22-8692b—608 hours.
a. VA Form 22-8691—15 minutes.
b. VA Form 22-8692—5 minutes.
c. VA Form 22-8692a—3 minutes.
d. VA Form 22-8692b—5 minutes.
a. VA Form 22-8691—17,400.
b. VA Form 22-8692—7,300.
c. VA Form 22-8692a—500.
d. VA Form 22-8692b—7,300.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. VA Form 22-1999b (Paper Copy)—16,667 hours.
b. VA Form 22-1999b (Electronically Filed)—35,000 hours.
a. VA Form 22-1999b (Paper Copy)—10 minutes.
b. VA Form 22-1999b (Electronically Filed)—7 minutes.
a. VA Form 22-1999b (Paper Copy)—100,000.
b. VA Form 22-1999b (Electronically Filed)—300,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and
Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 273-0487 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on January 31 and February 1, 2012. The meeting will be held in room 1143 of the Lafayette Building, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will start at 8 a.m. each day and will adjourn at 5 p.m. on January 31 and at 12:30 p.m. on February 1. All sessions will be open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed research studies, research plans and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Gulf War.
The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War Veterans' illnesses and updates on relevant scientific research published since the last Committee meeting. The session on January 31 will be devoted to discussion of the Gulf War Research Strategic Plan being prepared in VA's Office of Research and Development followed by an update of VA Gulf War research funding. The research presentations on February 1 will involve background information on Gulf War Veterans' illnesses, nervous system function, its relation to ill Gulf War Veterans, and possible laboratory markers for Gulf War Veterans' illnesses. The session will also include discussion of Committee business and activities.
The meeting will include time reserved for public comments each day. A sign-up sheet for five-minute comments will be available at the meeting. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Dr. Roberta White at
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Dr. Roberta White, Scientific Director, at (617) 638-4620 or Dr. Victor Kalasinsky, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 443-5682, or email at
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its energy conservation standards for several classes of commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess whether the uniform national standards for these covered equipment need to be updated each time the corresponding industry standard—the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1)—is amended, which most recently occurred on October 29, 2010. Based upon its analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy conservation standards and the lack of clear and convincing evidence to support more-stringent standards, DOE is proposing to adopt the amended standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h; and computer room air conditioners. DOE is also proposing updates to the current Federal test procedures to incorporate by reference the most current versions of the following relevant industry test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1: Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 210/240 (small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment); AHRI 340/360 (large and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment); Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727 and ANSI Z21.47 (commercial warm-air furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3 (commercial water heaters). Furthermore, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 1230 for newly-created classes of variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps, ASHRAE 127 for computer room air conditioners, and AHRI 390 for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. In addition, DOE is announcing a public meeting to receive comment on its proposal and related issues.
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting, should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards at the phone number above to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that any person wishing to bring a laptop computer into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to section X, “Public Participation,” of this NOPR.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR on Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Products, and provide docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC47. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section X of this document (Public Participation).
A link to the docket web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mailstop GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291
Accordingly, this NOPR sets forth DOE's determination of scope for consideration of amended energy conservation standards with respect to certain heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment addressed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Such inquiry is necessary to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have become more stringent, thereby ensuring that any new amended national standard would not result in prohibited “backsliding.” For those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-stringent or new efficiency levels (
In light of the above, DOE has tentatively concluded that for twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps, and thirty classes of computer room air conditioners: (1) The revised efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed elsewhere in this notice, DOE is proposing to amend its existing energy conservation standards for twelve equipment classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment and VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h (with and without heat recovery), and to establish new energy conservation standards for VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h (with and without heat recovery) and thirty classes of computer room air conditioners by adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
The proposed standards for small water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, and computer room air conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h would apply to equipment manufactured on or after the date two years after the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (
In addition, when the test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are updated, EPCA requires DOE to amend the test procedures for those ASHRAE equipment (which manufacturers are required to use in order to certify compliance with energy conservation standards mandated under EPCA) to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) Specifically, these amendments would update the citations and incorporations by reference in
DOE is also proposing to include an optional “break-in” provision in its test procedures for commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, in order to provide the manufacturer with the option of running the test unit for a set amount of time prior to testing the equipment. Such a provision could allow components within the unit to warm-up to conditions that are more characteristic of typical operation and more accurately reflect efficiencies achieved in the field. Lastly, DOE has identified a number of issues associated with its test procedures for which it is seeking comments from interested parties.
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pump systems, and computer room air conditioners.
Title III, Part C
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks.
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for each type of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must publish in the
EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require that DOE review the most recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (
EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE product during a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))
Additionally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that at least once every 7 years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of the test procedures for all covered equipment and either amend test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish notice in the
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. This action triggered DOE's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.
When considering the possibility of a more-stringent standard, DOE's more typical rulemaking requirements under EPCA apply (
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of the products likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE plans to follow a similar process in the context of today's rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from
Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard proposed herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.
As noted above, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency levels for many types of commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 revised its efficiency levels for certain commercial equipment and revised its scope to include additional equipment, but for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in place the preexisting levels (
Table II.1 below presents the equipment classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels differed from those in the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (
On May 5, 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability (May 2011 NODA) in the
In addition, DOE presented a discussion in the May 2011 NODA of the changes found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
As a result of the preliminary determination of scope set forth in the May 2011 NODA, DOE found that there were equipment types for which ASHRAE increased the efficiency levels (thereby triggering further analysis) including: (1) Water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; (2) two classes of VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery; and (3) computer room air conditioners (which were not previously covered). 76 FR 25622, 25644-47 (May 5, 2011). DOE presented its methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy savings analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment classes in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. 76 FR 25622, 25637-46 (May 5, 2011). For the remaining equipment classes, DOE requested data and information that would allow it to accurately assess the energy savings potential of those equipment classes.
In response to its request for comment on the May 2011 NODA, DOE received seven comments from manufacturers, trade associations, utilities, and energy efficiency advocates. As discussed above, these comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking and are available for review by following the instructions in the
In response to the preliminary determination of scope and analyses set forth in the May 2011 NODA, DOE received several comments regarding the ASHRAE process for considering revised efficiency levels for certain commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and water heater equipment.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated that it supported the efficiency levels for equipment shown in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, because the efficiency levels were created through a consensus-based process, DOE's analysis shows energy savings for all ASHRAE values analyzed, and adopting ASHRAE values would ensure a streamlined approach. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 1-2)
DOE maintains its position expressed in the March 20, 2009 NOPR, as restated below. While DOE recognizes that efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are the result of a consensus process, EPCA clearly sets forth DOE's obligations in terms of considering amendments when ASHRAE revises Standard 90.1. Specifically, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-stringent level as a national standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) In order to determine if more-stringent efficiency levels would meet EPCA's criteria, DOE must review the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and more-stringent efficiency levels for their energy savings and economic potentials irrespective of whether the efficiency levels were part of a consensus standard. 74 FR 12000, 12006.
The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) submitted a joint comment (hereafter referred to as “The Advocates” comment), which argued that although efficiency levels did not change for warm-air furnaces, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 contains design requirements (interrupted or intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not exceeding 0.75 percent of the input rating, and either power venting or a flue damper) that qualify as an amendment that triggers DOE's review. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2-3) The Advocates stated in previous comments attached as Exhibit B, “The plain language of EPCA ties DOE's duty to review and update Federal standards to ASHRAE's amendment of its own standards regardless of the direction or nature of the ASHRAE change.” (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit B, p. 3) The Advocates further note that the prescriptive requirements for warm-air furnaces meet DOE's own definition of “amendment,” because it increases the level of efficiency for this equipment type. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit B p. 4, referring to 73 FR 40771) Even if DOE decides it cannot adopt multi-metric standards, the Advocates believe that ASHRAE's action triggers a DOE review of the warm-air furnaces standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit B p. 4)
DOE does not agree with the Advocates' assertion that DOE is required to review changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 that do not increase the efficiency level when compared to the current Federal energy conservation standards for a given type of equipment. As it did in the July 2009 Final Rule, DOE views the trigger as attached to an increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 22, 2009). Further, since EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the
The Advocates also argued that EPCA authorizes DOE to adopt a multi-metric standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE has previously noted that Congress intended 42 U.S.C. 6313 to result in DOE “maintain[ing] uniform national standards consistent with those set in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.” (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3, referring to 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007)) The Advocates, therefore, contend that DOE must read the statute as permitting sufficient authority to harmonize standards with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) The
In response, if ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for equipment where an efficiency level is already specified, DOE does not believe it has the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment type. EPCA authorizes the Secretary to amend the energy conservation standards for specified equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)), but under 42 U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute's definition of the term “energy conservation standard” is limited to: (A) A performance standard that prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product.
The language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance standard
In light of the above, DOE maintains its position (stated in the July 2008 notice of data availability) that if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 73 FR 40770, 40771 (July 16, 2008).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric submitted a joint comment in response to the May 2011 NODA, with Southern California Edison (SCE) submitting an identical comment (hereafter referred to together as the CA IOU comment). Both the CA IOU comment and the Advocates comment argued that DOE should expand the scope of the rulemaking to include additional product classes. (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) Both comments specifically recommended considering amended standards for commercial air-cooled unitary air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial water heaters, arguing that higher efficiency levels would be technologically feasible and that potential national energy savings would be significant (commercial air-cooled unitary air conditioners and heat pumps) or would likely be significant (commercial water heaters). (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 2; The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5, 9) The Advocates also requested that DOE evaluate whether there are potentially significant savings for unitary water-source heat pumps. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 6) In addition, EEI recommended that if DOE reviews products for higher efficiency standards, it should take a fuel-neutral approach and analyze the energy savings potential from increasing energy efficiency standards for gas and oil-fired furnaces and boilers in addition to the electric products triggered by ASHRAE 90.1-2010. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 2)
The Advocates also argued that the six-year look back provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007)
The Advocates argued that EISA 2007 does not provide a temporal limitation on what is included in the “any final rule” language used. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 7) The Advocates also cited several Supreme Court cases in which “any” is interpreted to have an expansive meaning encompassing all species of the category in question. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 6-7) Therefore, the Advocates contend that the six-year review must be applied to all products that have a final rule regardless of when it was issued (
In response, DOE previously addressed similar comments in a March 20, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to ASHRAE products. 74 FR 12000. In that document, DOE acknowledged that EISA 2007 directs DOE to assess whether there is a need to update Federal energy conservation standards for certain commercial equipment (
DOE largely reiterated its position in the July 22, 2009 Final Rule related to ASHRAE products. 74 FR 36312, 36321. In response to DOE's previously stated position, the Advocates acknowledged that the provision is not retroactive, but rather is prospective as it requires reviews going forward. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 8-9) The Advocates also acknowledged that some final rules were already more than six years old when the amendment was enacted, and that Congress did not specifically provide a transition period. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 9) However, the Advocates contend that this does not mean DOE was out of
In response, DOE notes that it has determined previously that it plans to implement the six-year look back provision prospectively and believes that the clock for the six-year look back does not commence until a final rule is published for a given product or equipment after the enactment of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). As the products in question (
As discussed above, before beginning an analysis of the potential economic impacts and energy savings that would result from adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE first sought to determine whether or not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels actually represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal standard levels. This section discusses each equipment class where the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency level differs from the current Federal standard level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion as to the action DOE is taking with respect to that equipment.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A), a “warm air furnace” is defined as “a self-contained oil- or gas-fired furnace designed to supply heated air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes combination warm air furnace/electric air-conditioning units but does not include unit heaters and duct furnaces.” In its regulations, DOE defines a “commercial warm air furnace” as a “warm air furnace that is industrial equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of 225,000 Btu per hour or more.” 10 CFR 431.72.
Gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces are fueled by either natural gas or propane. The Federal minimum energy conservation standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces corresponds to the efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989, which specifies for equipment with a capacity of 225,000 Btu/h or more, the thermal efficiency at the maximum rated capacity (rated maximum input) must be no less than 80 percent. 10 CFR 431.77(a). The Federal minimum energy conservation standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces applies to equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1994. 10 CFR 431.77.
The current Federal standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces is in terms of “thermal efficiency,” which is defined as “100 percent minus percent flue loss.” 10 CFR 431.72. The previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated the tabulated requirements for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces to specify a minimum efficiency level of 80 percent “thermal efficiency” and references ANSI Z21.47-2006, “
In response to the preliminary review set forth in the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates commented that DOE must review requirements for warm-air furnaces because ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 contains new design requirements that are not included in the Federal standards, which they view as constituting an amendment that triggers DOE review. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2-3) Further, the Advocates urged DOE to adopt all the requirements for gas-fired and oil-fired warm-air furnaces included in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (
For the reasons explained in section III.B, DOE does not view the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 design requirements for warm-air furnaces as triggering DOE review of the efficiency levels for those products. Further, DOE has determined that incorporation of the design requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for commercial warm-air furnaces is beyond the scope of its legal authority, because the language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance standard or a single design standard and does not permit DOE to adopt both a performance standard and design standard. The fact that pending legislation, if passed, may convey such authority does not have any bearing on DOE's current authority. Thus, DOE has not changed its preliminary view set
EPCA, as amended, defines “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” as air-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled, or water-source (not including ground water-source) electrically operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps for commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) EPCA also defines “small,” “large,” and “very large” commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment based on the equipment's rated cooling capacity. (42 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10 CFR 431.92) “Small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” means equipment rated less than 135,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) “Large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” means equipment rated at or above 135,000 Btu per hour and less than 240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) “Very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” means equipment rated at or above 240,000 Btu per hour and less than 760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
The current Federal energy conservation standards for the six classes of water-cooled commercial package air conditioners for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended efficiency levels are shown in Table II.1. The Federal energy conservation standards for water-cooled equipment are differentiated based on the cooling capacity (
In response to the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates, the CA IOUs, and EEI recommended that DOE adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for water-cooled equipment, given that the potential national energy savings from efficiency levels above those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) Upon reviewing the results of the potential energy savings analysis in the May 2011 NODA, DOE agrees with the submitted comments. Because of the minimal energy savings available from this equipment (see section VIII.B.1), DOE has not conducted further analyses on these products and is proposing in today's NOPR to adopt the energy efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for water-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.
The current Federal energy conservation standards for the six classes of evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended efficiency levels are shown in Table II.1 above. Similar to water-cooled equipment, Federal energy conservation standards divide evaporatively-cooled equipment based on the cooling capacity (
DOE reviewed the market for evaporatively-cooled equipment and could not identify any models available on the market in the “small” unit product class (
For very large (
In response to the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates, CA IOUs, and EEI recommended that DOE adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels for evaporatively-cooled equipment, given that the potential national energy savings from efficiency levels above those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) In addition, AHRI agreed that overall energy savings for evaporatively-cooled units less than 240,000 Btu/h cannot be estimated because none exist on the market, but that DOE should still adopt ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels for those product classes. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI also agreed with DOE's recognition of Proposed Addendum j in regards to the EER correction for very large evaporatively-cooled equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1)
DOE agrees with these comments, and because of the minimal energy savings associated with more-stringent levels for very large equipment (see section VIII.B.1) and the lack of models on the market for small and large equipment,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 created a separate product class for variable refrigerant flow (VRF) air-conditioning and heating equipment. These products are currently covered under DOE's standards for commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, but they are not broken out as a separate product class.
In general, a VRF system will have a single condensing unit serving multiple evaporator coils within a building. Specific “subclasses” of variable refrigerant flow heat pumps equipped with heat recovery capability have been specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 with less-stringent efficiency requirements than specified for VRF systems without heat recovery. (Heat recovery capability provides for shuttling of heat from one part of the building to another and allows for simultaneous cooling and heating of different zones within a building.) Specifically, the efficiency requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for air-cooled VRF heat pumps with heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum energy conservation standards defined for air-cooled heat pumps with “all other heating system types that are integrated into the equipment,” and the efficiency requirements for air-cooled VRF heat pumps without heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum standards for air-cooled heat pumps with electric resistance or no heating.
Table IV.1 shows the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps in comparison to the current Federal minimum energy conservation standards for water-source heat pumps, which DOE has preliminarily determined would apply to VRF systems. For water-source VRF heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 generally maintains the existing energy efficiency requirements that apply to commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (water-source) for the VRF systems, with several notable exceptions. For VRF water-source heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 raises the efficiency levels above current Federal energy conservation standards. For VRF water-source heat pumps over 135,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE sets standards for products where DOE did not previously have standards. As a result, the Department conducted further analysis for these classes in the May 2011 NODA. DOE began by reviewing the current market for VRF water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h. The Department did not identify any models under 17,000 Btu/h on the market. DOE did identify 19 models greater than 135,000 Btu/h on the market and attempted to contact the manufacturer producing most of these models, but DOE was unable to obtain EER information for most of the models and had no shipment information for this product class. Because DOE could not identify any VRF water-source heat pumps being manufactured with cooling capacities less than 17,000 Btu/h, DOE believes that there are no energy savings associated with this equipment class. Therefore, DOE did not perform a potential energy-savings analysis for this equipment. Due to the lack of information and data on VRF water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than 135,000 Btu/h available at the time of the NODA, the Department did not conduct a preliminary energy saving estimate for the additional energy savings beyond the levels anticipated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for these VRF water-source heat pumps.
In addition to the changes for the equipment classes discussed above, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER reduction in the efficiency requirement for systems with heat recovery. However, the current Federal minimum standards for water-source heat pumps do not provide for any reduction in the EER requirements for equipment with “other” heating types. Therefore, the 0.2 EER reduction below the current Federal standard levels for the VRF water-source heat pump equipment classes in which ASHRAE did not raise the standard from the existing Federal minimum for water-source heat pumps (
In response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI agreed that there are no products available on the market in the category of less than 17,000 Btu/h water-source VRF heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) AHRI also commented that VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than 135,000 Btu/h comprise a new equipment class, and as such, DOE should accept that an analysis to estimate energy savings cannot be done because of the unavailability of data. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt the efficiency standards for these products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3)
With regard to the 0.2 EER reduction for systems with heat recovery, AHRI noted that DOE should consider this requirement because non-VRF water-source heat pumps are not a proper comparative product for determining appropriate VRF water-source heat pump efficiency levels (in regard to backsliding) because: (1) Non-VRF water-source heat pumps do not use the type of heating components used by VRF systems, and (2) the components that require the 0.2 EER reduction provide overall energy savings in the system that are not reflected in EER calculations. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5) Mitsubishi also submitted a comment in which it also noted that DOE's comparison of VRF water-source heat pumps to non-VRF water-source heat pumps is not appropriate because the non-VRF water-source heat pumps do not contain gas-fired heat exchangers like the unitary systems, which Mitsubishi believes would be a better comparison to the VRF system. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 3) Mitsubishi further noted that regardless of the comparison, DOE should adopt the 0.2 EER reduction because DOE is not legally prohibited from adopting an amendment that is a reduction of EER levels. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2, referring to 42 USC 6313(a)(6)(A)) Mitsubishi stated that the 0.2 EER reduction is necessary due to the increased pressure drop in the refrigerant levels due to the BC (branch circuit) controller, which works in unison with the outdoor unit to provide simultaneous cooling and heating needs. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2)
In response to comments from AHRI and from Mitsubishi regarding the 0.2 EER deduction for water-source heat pumps with heat recovery, DOE has determined that while there may be certain additional efficiency penalties for the incorporation of heat recovery in VRF water-source heat pumps, DOE believes that under the statutory scheme for commercial equipment standards, the corresponding existing product class is a water-source heat pump in which condenser heat is rejected to water, not air. As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting an efficiency level lower than the current Federal standards for water-source heat pumps less than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) providing for adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels. For VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels with or without heat recovery exceed the current Federal standards. For VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h, no current Federal standards exist. In both cases, DOE may adopt the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery.
Since the May 2011 NODA, AHRI released a certified product directory for VRF water-source heat pumps, thereby allowing DOE to perform an energy use analysis for VRF water-source heat pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h similar to those presented for other products in the May 2011 NODA. This analysis is discussed in detail in section V. The preliminary analysis showed that only minimal energy savings are available for surpassing ASHRAE efficiency levels for these products (see section VIII.B.2), so DOE did not conduct any further energy or economic analysis for these products. DOE agrees with AHRI's suggestion to adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 level for these products and is proposing to do so for VRF water-source heat pumps either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h with and without heat recovery.
EPCA defines a “packaged terminal air conditioner” as “a wall sleeve and a separate unencased combination of heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall. It includes a prime source of refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or electricity.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(A)) EPCA defines a “packaged terminal heat pump” as “a packaged terminal air conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime heat source and should have supplementary heat source available to builders with the choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant heat.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(B)) DOE codified these definitions at 10 CFR 431.92 in a final rule published in the
DOE adopted amended energy conservation standards for this class of equipment in a final rule published in the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 increased the efficiency levels for standard size equipment in comparison to the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. However, the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for these equipment classes meet but do not exceed the Federal standards established by DOE in the October 2008 final rule. Because ASHRAE seems to be harmonizing the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 with the Federal levels rather than increasing the minimum efficiency, DOE tentatively concluded in the May 2011 NODA that it is not required to take action on these products at this time. DOE did not receive any comments on this subject and is maintaining its position in this NOPR.
EPCA does not separate small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) or through-the-wall (TTW) heat pumps from other types of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment in its definitions. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) Therefore, EPCA's definition of “small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” would include SDHV and TTW heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B))
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 increased some of the efficiency levels for these classes of equipment. Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2010 increased the efficiency requirements for TTW heat pumps to 13.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in comparison to the efficiency levels of 12.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2007. However, in March 2011, ASHRAE issued Proposed Addendum h for public review that would correct the minimum SEER for these products to 12.0 SEER.
In the May 2011 NODA, DOE noted that Proposed Addendum h and another Proposed Addendum j,
In response, DOE notes that the Federal energy conservation standards for commercial types of TTW and SDHV heat pumps, which are 13.0 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, were established for the overall equipment category of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment by EISA 2007, which amended EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)(D)) Because the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for TTW equipment meet or do not exceed the DOE standards and because DOE believed that through the issuance of Addenda h and j, ASHRAE was removing requirements for this equipment from within ASHRAE 90.1 (and thus also not proposing new, higher efficiency requirements), DOE tentatively concluded in the May 2011 NODA that it was not required to take action on these products at this time. 76 FR 25622, 25633 (May 5, 2011).
In response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI commented that DOE is incorrect in assuming that Addendum j removes SDHV systems from the scope of coverage of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) It stated that the current minimum SEER requirement for SDHV units in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 applies to all models, both single-phase and three-phase electrical power with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI stated that three-phase SDHV with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are still covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 despite the omission in Addendum j (which AHRI believed deals only with single-phase SDHV systems covered under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA)). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI stated that DOE must consider the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 SEER requirement for three-phase SDHVs and adopt it as the Federal standard or propose an alternate requirement. AHRI recommended that DOE consider establishing the minimum requirements for three-phase SDHV models at 11 SEER and 6.8 HSPF. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2)
In addition, Unico requested that SDHV be retained as a product class with a minimum efficiency of 11 SEER/6.8 HSPF and that the product manufacturer must have an exception for this as granted by DOE. (Unico, No. 14 at p. 2) (Currently, three manufacturers of SDHV products have been granted exception relief by DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) allowing for the sale of SDHV products meeting efficiency of 11 SEER and 6.8 HSPF.
In response to the AHRI and Unico comments, DOE did not intend to imply that SDHV are removed from the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but notes that the removal of an efficiency requirement for a covered product within ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is indicative that ASHRAE is not proposing a higher standards for the equipment and that DOE, thus, has no requirement or legal ability to react to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for the equipment. In both the case of the published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for SDHV, or the removal of published values as a result of Addendum j, the minimum Federal efficiency standards for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, are higher than the levels originally proposed for SDHV in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE cannot adopt lower efficiency levels due to the prohibition against “backsliding” found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting the original ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 SEER requirement for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal standard, and DOE has no requirement to consider higher levels for three-phase SDHV equipment.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding TTW heat pumps and is maintaining its position in today's NOPR. The efficiency levels shown in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or in Addendum h, meet or do not exceed the current Federal standard for 3-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small package cooling and heating equipment, and, thus, DOE is not required to take action on these products at this time. DOE has no authority to set standards for any products of this type lower than the current Federal minimum.
DOE issued standards for single-package vertical air conditioner and heat pump units (SPVUs) as part of the March 23, 2009 final rule technical amendment in response to mandated efficiency levels for SPVUs established in the EISA 2007 legislation. 74 FR 12058, 12073-74. However, SPVUs are subject to a provision established by EISA 2007, which amended the applicable provisions of EPCA such that not later than three years after the date of this statutory provision's enactment (
The Department interprets the provision at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) as constituting a separate trigger to evaluate standards higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level. SPVUs are considered classes within the broader scope of small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA, as amended, directs DOE to conduct a review of the energy savings potential sometime in the three-year interval, and DOE believes this separate trigger is a one-time mechanism, after which SPVUs revert to the normal “ASHRAE trigger.” Accordingly, DOE commenced analytical work on these products along with the other equipment that is subject to the current “ASHRAE trigger” in the May 2011 NODA.
Upon review of the SPVU market, DOE identified several models of SPVUs in the small equipment class. However, DOE did not identify any models of SPVUs in the very large category or any models of single package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs) in the large category. The Department identified only five models of single package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) in the large category, and these were all close to the upper size limit of the small category, at 70,000 Btu/h or less. As a result of the apparent lack of a market for very large SPVUs and large SPVHPs (as demonstrated by the small size of the market (five models) and accompanying lack of shipment estimates for the large SPVACs), for the May 2011 NODA, DOE conducted complete preliminary energy saving estimates for only the small equipment classes. Additionally, DOE used the energy saving results for small SPVACs to derive an estimate of the potential energy savings for large SPVACs.
In response to the May 2011 NODA, the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to conduct additional analysis for SPVUs above the current ASHRAE levels due to DOE's preliminary analysis of higher levels showing potential reduction of national energy consumption of 0.5 quads over 30 years. (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 2) The Advocates also agreed that the amendments to EISA 2007 compel review of the existing standards for SPVUs and consideration of levels above those contained in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7)
DOE concurs with these comments. As a result of the potential for high energy savings from increasing the efficiency levels for SPVUs, and the fact that any of these levels would be higher than the ASHRAE levels, DOE is conducting additional analysis for these products along the 30-month timeline for more-stringent standards, as allowed by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) No further results regarding these products' efficiency are presented in today's NOPR, and the results of the additional analysis for SPVUs will be presented in a separate NOPR in the future, consistent with that timeline. However, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 390 as the DOE test procedure for this equipment.
Air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms operate similarly to other types of commercial packaged air conditioners in that they provide space conditioning using a refrigeration cycle consisting of a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and evaporator. However, air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms are typically designed to maintain the temperature in the conditioned space within a narrow range (
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 created a separate product class for “air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms,” and set efficiency levels using the sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) metric, as measured using the test method in ASHRAE Standard 127-2007, “Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners.” The product classes and efficiency levels established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are set forth in Table II.1 above.
Prior to this equipment having separate efficiency levels and test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE discussed such units using the terminology “computer room air conditioners” in an August 9, 2000 NOPR (65 FR 48828, 48830-31) and an October 21, 2004 direct final rule (69 FR 61962, 61967). In the August 2000 NOPR, DOE determined that computer room air conditioners were not covered as part of the commercial packaged air conditioning and heating equipment classes in EPCA and subsequently upheld this position in the October 2004 direct final rule. DOE made this determination because at the time of passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, which gave DOE the authority to cover commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment), the statute excluded this equipment, and as a result, DOE concluded that it lacked the authority to regulate this equipment. The basis for DOE's decision stemmed from the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which at the time specified that the standard did not cover “equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes.” (See section 2.3(c) of ASHRAE 90.1 standards prior to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; cited at 65 FR 48828, 48830 (August 9, 2000)). Further, the House Report on EPACT 1992 (H.R. Rep. No. 474, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 at 175 (1992)) pointed out that the efficiency standards contained in the bill were developed by ASHRAE in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE concluded that this indicated that the efficiency standards for commercial products in EPACT 1992 would have the same scope as the version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at the time of the legislation's enactment (
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 experienced expanded scope as compared to previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including process loads (
Lastly, although DOE addressed computer room air conditioners in the August 2000 NOPR and October 2004 direct final rule, DOE never formally defined this term. In reviewing ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE noted that ASHRAE does not define a class of equipment in terms of physical characteristics, but rather an application (
In response to the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates supported DOE's determination that it has the authority to review the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners and establish energy conservation standards. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI suggested that DOE should adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 approach for computer room air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) The Advocates stated that potential energy savings for computer room air conditioners may be significant, and the CA IOUs also noted that computer room air conditioners have high potential energy savings, particularly given their market penetration. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3-4) The Advocates and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE ensure that any standards established for computer room air conditioners be at least as stringent as the current California standards. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3-4)
In response to the suggestions from stakeholders, DOE undertook an analysis to estimate the potential energy savings associated with computer room air conditioners, and to perform a cost-benefit analysis of standard levels above the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels. DOE has obtained additional information for this equipment and conducted an energy and economic savings analysis, which is discussed in Section VI. However, as discussed in that section, DOE believes that clear and convincing evidence does not exist as would justify standards beyond those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. As a result, DOE is proposing to adopt energy efficiency standards for computer room air conditioners at the levels set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. See sections VI and VIII for a summary of DOE's analysis, results, and conclusions for computer room air conditioners.
DOE received an inquiry from an interested party regarding the applicability of DOE's regulatory program for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment in terms of equipment that is used exclusively for industrial or manufacturing processes. Specifically, Engineered Air asked the Department to clarify it's position on the following three issues: (1) In units where centrifugal condenser fans are required, the specified EERs cannot be met due to the motor horsepower required on the condenser fan; (2) applicability of the regulatory program in applications where the DX unit functions without ANY regard to the comfort of the occupants, the EERs may not be met; and (3) DOE's position on enforcing its regulations since DOE's regulations are broader than the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (Engineered Air, No. 15 at p. 1)
As mentioned above with regard to air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 expanded the scope of its coverage as compared to previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not apply to equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes (see ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, section 2.3(c)). While DOE still believes it is ASHRAE's intent to continue to exclude most of those equipment types that are used solely for manufacturing and industrial processes, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 now applies to new equipment or building systems used in manufacturing or industrial processes that are specifically identified in the standard.
In order to aid regulated entities in determining whether their equipment falls within the scope of DOE's definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” and, thus, is subject to DOE's regulatory requirements, DOE is providing the following guidance. If the equipment
With respect to Engineered Air's specific questions, DOE believes the above guidance will help manufacturers like Engineered Air evaluate the applicability of the Department's regulatory equipment to the specific basic models it manufactures. All equipment distributed in commerce in the U.S. that meets DOE's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that is not subject to the Department's exclusion guidance set forth above must meet the Federal energy conservation standards regardless of technology or design. DOE actively enforces all of its energy conservation standards for all covered products and equipment.
EPCA requires DOE to amend any test procedures for ASHRAE products to the latest version generally accepted by the industry or the rating procedures developed or recognized by industry, as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines that clear and convincing evidence exists that the latest version of the industry test procedure does not meet the requirements for test procedures described under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3).
Additionally, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 adopts new test procedures for measuring the efficiency of variable refrigerant flow equipment (AHRI 1230-2010,
Lastly, DOE is required to review the test procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment at least once every seven years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) In addition to the updates to the referenced standards (which are discussed in the subsections below), DOE is seeking comments on any other relevant issues that would affect the test procedures for the ASHRAE equipment addressed in today's NOPR (
For small commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure from AHRI 210/240-2003 to AHRI 210/240-2008. Between the 2003 and 2008 versions of AHRI 210/240, AHRI made several updates, which are summarized here and discussed in further detail in the May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25635 (May 5, 2011). AHRI 210/240-2008 references DOE's test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps contained at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. AHRI updated the 210/240 test procedure for small commercial air conditioners and air-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h to reflect the recent updates the DOE made to its test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. In doing so, AHRI updated the definitions for “heating seasonal
In the NODA, DOE tentatively concluded that these changes did not significantly impact the energy efficiency metric of small commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's tentative conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any comments or information that would cause it to reconsider the adoption of the updated AHRI 210/240-2008 test method. As a result, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-2008 into the Federal test procedure for small commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
Additionally, through review of the AHRI certification program for commercial unitary equipment, DOE has discovered that the use of a compressor “break-in” period is common when testing commercial unitary equipment. By way of explanation, the AHRI certification program provides for an optional “break-in” period, which allows a manufacturer to have the testing laboratory run the equipment for a period of time before beginning the test. This break-in period is particularly important for scroll compressors, which may be less efficient when first started and may require time to warm up to achieve optimal performance. Once the compressor is broken in, the performance should be more representative of the actual field performance. EPCA requires that test procedures be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs for a typical type of equipment (or class thereof) during a representative use cycle, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
DOE believes that allowing for an optional break-in period will provide manufacturers more flexibility to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency of their units in a manner that is representative of their average use. At the same time, DOE recognizes that requiring the break-in period may add significant testing costs and burden, and, thus, DOE believes the break-in period should be optional to allow manufacturers to use this period at their discretion. Therefore, DOE is proposing to create a provision in its test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 that would allow manufacturers the option of a “break-in” period not to exceed 16 hours to warm up the equipment's compressor and components. This 16-hour time limit of the “break-in” period that DOE is proposing matches the period used by AHRI in its Operations Manual for Unitary Large Equipment Certification Program.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (AHRI 340/360) from the 2004 version (currently referenced in DOE's test procedures) to the 2007 version. Between these two versions of AHRI 340/360, AHRI expanded the scope of the standard to include air-cooled packaged unitary air-conditioners with a cooling capacity from 250,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 Btu/h. AHRI also added a tolerance to the minimum external static pressure measurement (from 0.0 inches of H
In the May 2011 NODA, DOE concluded that these changes did not significantly impact the measurement of energy efficiency of small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In response to this conclusion, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's position in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments on this topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360-2007 into the DOE test procedure for small, large, and very large commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 760,000 Btu/h.
For small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, DOE is also proposing to add the optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, as discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option will allow the test procedure to be more representative of the actual performance characteristics of small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, while not increasing the burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE will update the certification provisions pending the outcome of this proposal in the upcoming certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the need for an optional break-in period for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period. This is identified as issue 4 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its reference test procedure for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces (UL 727) from the 1994 version of the standard to the 2006 version of the standard. The DOE test procedure for determining the energy efficiency of commercial warm-air furnaces
In the May 2011 NODA, DOE concluded that this change did not significantly impact the energy efficiency metric for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's tentative conclusion. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments on this topic. Thus, DOE is proposing to amend its test procedures at 10 CFR 431.76 to reference UL 727-2006 for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure for commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces (ANSI Z21.47) from the 1998 version (currently referenced in DOE's test procedure) to the 2006 version. Between the two versions of ANSI Z21.47, ANSI updated the sections that DOE references in its test procedure for determining the energy efficiency of commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces. In the relevant sections, ANSI expanded the scope to include optional special construction provisions for furnaces designed to operate at altitudes over 2000 feet. ANSI also added a new section, which is not part of the referenced DOE test procedure but caused the Thermal Efficiency section (which is relevant) to move from section 2.38 to section 2.39. In the May 2010 NODA, DOE summarized these updates and stated its tentative conclusion that they do not substantively impact the measurement of energy efficiency for commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011).
In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments from interested parties pertaining to this issue. Thus, DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76 to reference ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired furnaces warm-air furnaces.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure for commercial gas-fired water heaters (ANSI Z21.10.3) from the 1998 version to the 2004 version. Between these two versions, ANSI moved the relevant sections for thermal efficiency test and standby loss test to Exhibit G and added a provision to limit the duration of the standby loss test to a maximum of 48 hours if there is no cutout (
In the May 2010 NODA, DOE tentatively concluded that these updates would not significantly affect the measurement of energy efficiency for commercial gas-fired water heaters. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) However, the American Gas Association (AGA) expressed concern that water heaters that comply with the version of ANSI Z21.10.3 currently referenced by DOE's test procedure may be found in non-compliance under the revised test method and suggested that DOE do testing in order to provide data on the impact of this change. (AGA, No. 9 at p. 1)
In response, DOE again reviewed the changes to the ANSI Z21.10.3 test procedure for commercial water heating equipment. DOE notes that the only change in the relevant sections of the ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 test procedure is the duration limit for the standby loss test in the event that a cutout does not occur. As noted above, this duration limit is superseded by DOE's duration limit specified in 10 CFR 431.106, which has been in place since the October 21, 2004 direct final rule. 69 FR 61974, 61984. As a result, the standby loss test changes in ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 would similarly be superseded by DOE's requirements for the standby loss test; and for all practical purposes, the test will continue to be required to be conducted in the same manner as before this proposed rule. Thus, DOE does not believe that the new changes to the test procedure will cause any currently-compliant water heaters to be found in noncompliance. Because DOE believes that the incorporated provisions of the water heater test procedure in ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 will be conducted in the same manner as those referenced in the previous test procedure, DOE does not believe that testing is required to support its tentative conclusion that there will be no difference in equipment efficiency as determined by the updated test procedure.
AGA also requested clarification on the current DOE efficiency requirement for electric and oil-fired commercial storage water heaters and was concerned that the standby loss test changes in ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 would also affect the ratings for these equipment classes. AGA stated its interpretation that the current standby loss requirements for these products stem from the 1989 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and that editions of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 since then contain standby loss requirements that are less stringent for commercial electric water heaters and, accordingly, are not adoptable by DOE. (AGA, No. 9 at p.1) In response, the efficiency requirements for electric and oil-fired commercial storage water heaters are listed at 10 CFR 431.110. Oil-fired storage water heaters must have a minimum thermal efficiency of 78 percent and a maximum standby loss of Q/800+110(V
DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 to incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.10.3-2006 for commercial gas-fired water heaters. DOE seeks additional comment on this proposal to adopt ANSI Z21.10.3-2006, which is identified as issue 5 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies ASHRAE 127-2007,
ASHRAE 127-2007 contains provisions that make it better suited for computer room air conditioners than the current commercial packaged air conditioner test procedures (
In addition, ASHRAE 127-2007 contains a standard rating test for reheating/dehumidification/humidification systems, which are important functions of computer room air conditioners. The humidity of a computer room is an important aspect to control, as too much humidity can cause condensation on the electronic equipment (which has the potential to render the equipment inoperable) and too little humidity may cause potentially hazardous static discharges.
Because ASHRAE 127-2007 is tailored to computer room air conditioners, DOE believes it will provide a more representative efficiency rating, which is more reflective of the actual efficiency of the unit. DOE believes that ASHRAE 127-2007 is reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct, as outlined in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). In response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127 as the test procedure for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments from interested parties pertaining to this issue. For the reasons above, DOE is proposing to adopt ASHRAE 127-2007 as the test method for computer room air conditioners; however, DOE notes several possible issues with the test procedure in the paragraphs below. DOE seeks comment on this proposal, as well as the need for potential modifications for the computer room air conditioner test procedures, and this is identified as issue 6 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
DOE notes that on July 14, 2011, ASHRAE published a public draft review of a revision to ASHRAE 127. A preliminary review of this draft revealed that ASHRAE created four different application classes to meet the industry need to modify equipment to accept higher return temperatures. Each application class has a different standard rating condition. ASHRAE also changed the water temperature conditions for water-cooled direct expansion units to match the conditions in AHRI 340/360 plus a typical cooling tower approach. This update also renames the SCOP and adjusted sensible coefficient of performance (ASCOP) metrics as Net Sensible Coefficient of Performance Rating (NSenCOP) and Integrated Net Sensible Rating (iNSenCOP), respectively. The NSenCOP is to be published at five rating conditions as opposed to four for SCOP (the four rating test conditions A-D in addition to iNSenCOP). The public comment period for the review of this draft has closed. DOE is not proposing to adopt the draft revisions to ASHRAE 127 because they have not been finalized yet, but DOE seeks comments about how to treat the revisions. This is identified as issue 6 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
Lastly, DOE notes that the SCOP metric in ASHRAE 127-2007 does not measure part-load performance, and may not properly account for efficiency features that improve the part-load performance, such as variable speed fan motors and multi-stage compressors. Computer room air conditioners operate virtually all year round with a varying load, depending on how active the computer room is and the outdoor conditions. DOE requests comments on the shortcomings of this test procedure and the SCOP metric, and further improvements that could be made. See Section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
For computer room air conditioners, DOE is also requesting comment on the appropriateness of allowing an optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, similar to those being proposed for other commercial air conditioning and heating equipment in this notice (as discussed in section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option could
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies AHRI 1230,
DOE first addressed the issue of AHRI 1230 in the October 22, 2007 test procedure final rule for residential air conditioners and heat pumps. 72 FR 59906. In that final rule, DOE decided not to adopt ARI 1230 at the time for residential VRF products, because ARI 1230 had not been finalized yet. DOE also noted that the draft test procedure lacked information on: (1) How to conduct intermediate speed tests; (2) whether any indoor units are to be turned off for part-load test; and (3) how to interpolate EER and COP in the intermediate speed range.
Since 2008, DOE has issued 13 waivers to 5 different manufacturers exempting them from the commercial air conditioning and heat pump test procedures (AHRI 210/240 or AHRI 340/360).
Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (74 FR 35860 (July 21, 2009); 74 FR 66311 (Dec. 15, 2009); 74 FR 66315 (Dec. 15, 2009); 76 FR 40714 (July 11, 2011)).
LG (74 FR 66330 (Dec. 15, 2009)).
Sanyo North America Corporation (75 FR 41845 (July 19, 2010)).
Carrier Corporation (76 FR 31951 (June 2, 2011)).
In addition, manufacturers brought up several other issues in the petitions for test procedure waivers that related to applying the commercial air conditioning test procedure to VRF systems. Manufacturers asserted that: (1) There is no provision to accommodate having indoor units operating at different static pressures; (2) there is no precise number of part-load tests for fully variable speed; and (3) it does not account for simultaneous heating and cooling. DOE notes that the fact that multi-split systems can simultaneously heat and cool a building does not impact the efficiency rating, because the efficiency metric (
AHRI 1230-2010 contains the same definition and procedures for rating the efficiency of a “tested combination” as the alternative DOE test procedure that DOE developed in response to the waivers. AHRI 1230-2010 also contains specific language on how to test multiple indoor units, the number of tests for variable speed compressors, and how to test for simultaneous cooling and heating efficiency, which should mitigate manufacturer complaints regarding the existing DOE test procedure for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment as it applies to VRF systems. AHRI 1230-2010 also tests for EER and COP at the same rating conditions as AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 340/360. Thus, these systems should test for EER in the same way as other commercial air conditioners and heat pumps once the systems are set up according to AHRI 1230-2010.
In February 2011, AHRI amended the test procedure in Addendum 1 to AHRI 1230 to modify the definition of “tested combination” to contain between 2 and 12 indoor units as opposed to between 2 and 5 indoor units. DOE believes this change merely extends the range of a tested combination and has no effect on the efficiency metric of the system. DOE believes this test procedure properly addresses all the concerns of testing VRF systems, results in a rating that reasonably reflects the energy efficiency of these systems, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
In response, DOE received a comment from AHRI which encouraged DOE to adopt AHRI 1230-2010, stating that a deliberate and open process was used to develop this test procedure and that it incorporates the alternative test procedure initially developed by DOE to cover VRF equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) The Advocates and CA IOUs, however, encouraged DOE to conduct a test procedure rulemaking for VRF equipment in order to eliminate the need for manufacturers to seek test procedure waivers for this equipment. (Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5, CA IOUs, No. 10,12 at p. 3) DOE believes that AHRI 1230-2010 incorporates all of the alternative test procedure that DOE developed through its waiver process, is a comprehensive test procedure for VRF systems, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Manufacturers of VRF systems should not need to seek a test procedure waiver from AHRI
For VRF systems, DOE is also proposing to add the optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, as discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option will allow the test procedure to be more representative of the actual performance characteristics of VRF systems, while not increasing the burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE will update the certification provisions pending the outcome of this proposal in the upcoming certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the need for an optional break-in period for VRF systems, and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period. This is identified as issue 7 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
For single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 lists AHRI 390-2003, “Performance Rating of Single Packaged Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,” as the referenced test procedure. Commercial SPVACs and SPVHPs were not distinguished as separate classes of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment in DOE's regulations until EISA 2007 amended EPCA to set efficiency standards specifically for this equipment (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)), which DOE subsequently codified in its regulations through a final rule published on March 23, 2009. 74 FR 12058. Although EISA 2007 specified minimum energy conservation standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, it did not specify the applicable test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of SPVACs and SPVHPs. As discussed previously, according to EPCA, the test procedures for ASHRAE products shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and shall be reasonably designed to product test results which reflect energy efficiency or energy use of those products. Further, when a test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless doing so would not meet the requirements for test procedures described in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)-(B))
DOE reviewed AHRI 390-2003 and believes the procedure is reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency of SPVACs and SPVHPs. In the May 2011 NODA, DOE requested comment about the adoption of AHRI 390-2003 as the test method for SPVACs and SPVHPs. 76 FR 25622, 25635 (May 5, 2011). DOE received a comment from AHRI encouraging DOE to adopt AHRI 390-2003, in which AHRI remarked that this test procedure was developed with input from DOE. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments on this topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 390-2003 as its test procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs.
In addition, for this equipment DOE is proposing to add the optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, as discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option will allow the test procedure to be more representative of the actual performance characteristics of SPVACs and SPVHPs, while not increasing the burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE will update the certification provisions pending the outcome of this proposal in the upcoming certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the need for an optional break-in period for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period. This is identified as issue 8 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
As part of its ongoing testing efforts in support of DOE's regulatory program, DOE has encountered situations where the Department has received
DOE does not intend for this clarification to change the way manufacturers currently test their products for the purposes of determining their certified ratings for each basic model. Instead, DOE wishes to harmonize the way it conducts its testing with the testing done by manufacturers. Consequently, DOE seeks comments generally on whether there are additional settings beyond the tolerances in the test procedure or additional specifications for the test set-up that DOE should consider for testing of all types of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment as part of this rulemaking. If such settings are basic-model specific, DOE could, for example, come up with a way for manufacturers to disclose these instructions as part of their initial certifications for a given basic model. With the separation of VRF systems as a separate equipment class and the complexity inherent in testing this type of equipment, DOE specifically seeks comment on the testing conditions, the basic model operating points, and set-up for this equipment. This is identified as issue 9 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
For purposes of certification testing, the determination that a basic model complies with the applicable conservation standard must be based on testing conducted using DOE's testing procedures and the sampling procedures, which are found in 10 CFR Part 429.43 for commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
DOE uses statistically meaningful sampling procedures for selecting test specimens of commercial and industrial equipment, which would require the manufacturer to select a sample at random from a production line and, after each unit or group of units is tested, either accept the sample or continue sampling and testing additional units until a rating determination can be made. DOE did not propose a specific sample size for each product because the sample size is determined by the validity of the sample and how the mean compares to the standard, factors which cannot be determined in advance.
In this proposed rule, DOE is proposing that the existing sampling procedures in 10 CFR part 429.43 be applied to any new covered equipment being addressed by testing procedures in this NOPR, including VRF systems, SPVUs, and CRACs. DOE believes this type of equipment is similar to the other types of commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment subject to DOE's existing sampling procedures for certification testing and does not warrant differential treatment.
As discussed in the preceding sections, DOE is proposing to include in its regulations separate standards and test procedures for VRF systems, and new standards and test procedures for computer room air conditioners. Additionally, after the enactment of EISA 2007, DOE created separate standards for single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps in its regulations at 10 CFR 431.97 (74 FR 12058, 12073-74 (March 23, 2009)), and is proposing to adopt a test procedure for those equipment in today's notice. Further, DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97 also include “very large” commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. To be consistent with the treatment of other commercial HVAC equipment and to reduce ambiguity, DOE is proposing to modify the definition of “Commercial HVAC & WH product” that was added to 10 CFR 431.2 by a March 7, 2011 final rule for certification, compliance, and enforcement for consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment. 76 FR 12422, 12503. DOE proposes to modify the definition so that it explicitly includes very large commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, single package vertical air conditioners, single package vertical heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners, and variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pumps.
This section addresses the analysis DOE has performed for this rulemaking with respect to VRF water-source heat pumps. As mentioned in section IV.B.3, DOE performed a preliminary National Energy Savings analysis for VRF water-source heat pumps greater than 135,000 Btu/h, equivalent to that performed for the May 2011 NODA for other product categories. DOE was unable to perform this analysis at the time of the NODA because AHRI had not yet released a database of efficiency information for these products, and DOE was unable to obtain sufficient EER information from a review of manufacturer Web sites. As a result of the minimal energy savings demonstrated by DOE's analysis for the NOPR (the results of which are summarized in section VIII.B.2), DOE did not conduct further energy savings or economic analyses. In addition, in response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI confirmed that there are no VRF water-source heat pumps being manufactured with cooling capacities below 17,000 Btu/h, so DOE did not perform a potential energy-savings analysis for this product class.
VRF water-source heat pumps are part of the larger VRF system equipment class. VRF systems are a subset of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 placed into separate equipment classes. As a result, in today's NOPR, DOE is proposing to separate the VRF equipment classes from the other classes of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. Neither EPCA nor DOE's regulations in the CFR define “variable refrigerant flow system.” DOE examined the definitions for VRF systems in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and AHRI Standard 1230, the proposed test procedure for this equipment.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 defines a “variable refrigerant flow system” as “an engineered direct expansion (DX) multi-split system incorporating at least one variable capacity compressor distributing refrigerant through a piping network to multiple indoor fan coil units each capable of individual zone temperature control, through integral zone temperature control devices and common communications network. Variable refrigerant flow utilizes three or more steps of control on common, interconnecting piping.” AHRI Standard 1230, the test procedure cited by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for use with this equipment, uses the term “variable refrigerant flow multi-split system” and defines it as “a split system air-conditioner or heat pump incorporating a single refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one variable speed compressor or an alternative compressor combination for varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, multiple indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually metered and individually controlled by a proprietary control device and common communications network. The system shall be capable of operating as an air conditioner or a heat pump. Variable refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of control on common, inter-connecting piping.”
In both cases, the definitions use the term “multi-split” to distinguish such units from “mini-split,” with the indoor units of the latter systems only being able to be controlled by one thermostat (as opposed to multi-split, which can be controlled by multiple thermostats). Because DOE believes that it is important to distinguish VRF systems as multi-split systems, DOE is proposing to formulate these definitions with the term “multi-split” in the title for this equipment class based on the definitions above. DOE believes that these proposed definitions incorporate all the unique features of this equipment class, most notably the individually-controlled indoor units which operate independently from other indoor units. DOE proposes the definitions of “variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioner” and “variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump” to read as follows:
These definitions clearly delineate VRF air conditioners and heat pumps as a sub-category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment and are structured in such a way to ensure that there are no overlaps with any other covered equipment class. There is also a subcategory of VRF systems that have heat recovery; therefore, DOE is also proposing to define “heat recovery” in the context of variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners or variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pumps to read as follows:
DOE is requesting comment on its proposed definitions of “variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioner,” “variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump,” and “heat recovery.” This is identified as issue 10 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
Annual per-unit energy use estimates for VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity were developed based on whole building energy simulation of a medium-sized prototype office building in 15 locations around the U.S, with each location representing one of 15 unique climate zones within the U.S.
DOE simulated the medium office building using actual equipment selections corresponding to three different efficiency levels identified in the AHRI certified product directory for VRF multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps.
DOE performed simulations of the prototype office building at these three VRF efficiency levels in each climate for systems with and without heat recovery. As the ratings data do not identify the indoor units used, DOE selected a representative ducted indoor section and developed supply fan power estimates based on that unit for ducted systems representing the first two efficiency levels simulated. For non-ducted systems where there was a large variety of indoor sections available, DOE developed an average fan power estimate based on average supply fan power data for five different ductless indoor section designs. DOE then used that average ductless fan power estimate in simulating the building with VRF systems at this third, highest, efficiency level.
The annual electrical energy use for the VRF equipment, including each condensing unit and all associated evaporator units, was extracted from the simulation results for each building simulated and normalized by cooling capacity to provide estimates of annual VRF cooling, heating, and fan energy consumption at the average cooling capacities estimated by DOE for the two VRF product classes. For water-source VRF systems greater than 135,000 Btu/h without heat recovery, DOE estimated the average cooling capacity at 216,000 Btu/h based on the average for available equipment found in the 2011 AHRI certified products directory.
DOE calculated the national average energy use for VRF systems with and without heat recovery at each efficiency level using commercial building construction weights previously developed by DOE and assigned to each of the 15 U.S. climate zones. For each equipment class, DOE developed linear relationship between the national average cooling energy use and the reciprocal of the cooling EER for each consecutive pair of three efficiencies modeled. DOE also developed a linear relationship between the national average heating energy use and the
DOE obtained historical (1989-2009) water-source heat pump shipment data from the U.S. Census.
As these shipment data represent water-source heat pumps generally and not VRF water-source heat pumps specifically, DOE undertook research to ascertain the number of models of water-source heat pumps in total, and VRF water-source heat pumps specifically. DOE used AHRI's Directories of Certified Product Performance for Water-to-Air and Water-to-Water Heat Pumps (excluding groundwater loop and ground loop) and VRF Multi-Split Water-to-Air Heat Pumps for this purpose.
DOE then reviewed the AHRI Certified Product Directory to determine the distribution of efficiency levels for commercially-available models of VRF water-source heat pumps greater than 135,000 Btu/h. DOE bundled the efficiency levels into “efficiency ranges” and determined the percentage of models within each range. The distribution of efficiencies in the base case can be found in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. It is important to note that DOE did not identify any models on the market for either class of equipment with an EER below those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
For the standards case, DOE assumed shipments at lower efficiencies were most likely to roll up into higher efficiency levels in response to more-stringent energy conservation standards. For each efficiency level analyzed within a given equipment class, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the year in which compliance with amended standards is required (
Using the distribution of efficiencies in the base case and in the standards cases, as well as the unit energy consumption (UEC) for each specified EER (discussed previously), DOE calculated market-weighted average
DOE converted the annual site energy savings into the annual amount of energy saved at the source of electric generation (
DOE used a product lifetime of 19 years for VRF water-source heat pumps based on the ASHRAE 2011 HVAC Applications Handbook.
For purposes of calculating the national energy savings (NES), DOE used an analysis period of 2013 (the assumed compliance date if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE levels as Federal standards for large and very large products) through 2042. This is the standard analysis period of 30 years that DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. While the analysis period remains the same for assessing the energy savings of Federal standard levels higher than the ASHRAE levels, those energy savings would not begin accumulating until 2017 (the assumed compliance date if DOE were to determine that standard levels more stringent than the ASHRAE levels are justified).
If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards at the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2010, EPCA states that any such standards shall become effective on or after a date which is two or three years (depending on equipment size) after the effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard (
If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards higher than the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, under EPCA, any such standard would apply to for products manufactured four years after the date of publication of the final rule in the
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with respect to computer room air conditioners. A separate subsection addresses each analysis. In overview, DOE used a spreadsheet to calculate the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback periods (PBPs) of potential energy conservation standards. DOE used another spreadsheet to provide shipments forecasts and then calculate national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards.
To begin its review of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels, DOE developed information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity included both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market assessment for this rulemaking include equipment classes, manufacturers, quantities, and types of equipment sold and offered for sale. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. For additional detail, see chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD.
As discussed in the May 2011 NODA, the 2010 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 modified the scope of the standard to include air conditioning equipment used for process cooling and set efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners. 76 FR 25622, 25633-34 (May 5, 2011). Given this expansion of scope, DOE tentatively determined that it has the authority to consider and adopt standards for this equipment.
As noted in section IV.C, computer room air conditioners operate in a similar manner to other commercial air conditioners, in that they provide space conditioning using a refrigeration cycle with a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and an evaporator. However, computer room air conditioners are designed to maintain the temperature in a narrow range, to minimize temperature swings, and to maintain a specific relative humidity (usually between 40 and 55 percent). The equipment usually must be able to both humidify and dehumidify the air to maintain humidity at desired levels, and they are sometimes called “precision air
DOE is not aware of any components in computer room air conditioners that are exclusive to only computer room air conditioners and not to commercial air conditioners used for comfort conditioning (or vice versa) that could be used to effectively differentiate the two types of units on the basis of their construction. Further, DOE notes that the class of computer room air conditioners is defined in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as an application (
In the NODA, DOE requested comment on an appropriate approach for establishing a definition for “computer room air conditioner.” 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May 5, 2011). In response, AHRI suggested that DOE use the product's rated performance and the relevant rating standard (SCOP and ASHRAE 127, respectively) to distinguish air conditioners and condensing units designed for serving computer rooms from other types of commercial packaged air conditioning and heating equipment covered by EPCA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments on this issue.
As noted above, DOE found that the operating conditions for computer room air conditioners are different from those for air conditioners used for comfort conditioning. Different humidity and temperature conditions and a higher sensible load could lead manufacturers of computer room air conditioners to optimize their equipment to perform best at the rating conditions found in ASHRAE Standard 127 (a test method specifically for computer and data processing room air conditioners), rather than AHRI Standard 210/240 or 340/360 (test methods for commercial package air conditioning equipment used for comfort conditioning). Because of this, DOE believes that manufacturers of computer room air conditioners would likely test those units according to ASHRAE Standard 127, while manufacturers of commercial package air conditioners intended for use in comfort conditioning applications would test those units according to either AHRI Standard 210/240 or AHRI Standard 340/360, depending on the cooling capacity of the unit.
As a result, DOE is proposing in today's NOPR to define a “computer room air conditioner” based on how the equipment is marketed exclusively for use and which test standard is used to rate the performance of the equipment. DOE proposes the following definition of “computer room air conditioner”:
DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition of “computer room air conditioner,” as well as on alternatives to this proposed definition. DOE is particularly interested in information on physical characteristics or features that could possibly be used to differentiate between computer room air conditioners and other types of commercial package air conditioners. This is identified as issue 11 in Section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
As noted above, there are currently no Federal energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners. Different classes of computer room air conditioners are distinguished by several factors in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, which include the net sensible cooling capacity (
In general, DOE divides equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may apply to different equipment classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the context of the present rulemaking, DOE believes net sensible cooling capacity (
In order to obtain the information needed for the market assessment for this rulemaking, DOE consulted a variety of sources, including manufacturer literature, manufacturer Web sites, and the California Energy Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency Database. The information DOE gathered serves as resource material throughout the rulemaking. The sections below provide an overview of the computer room air conditioner market assessment, and chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD provides additional detail on the market assessment, including citations to relevant sources.
There is no trade association that represents computer room air conditioner manufacturers. AHRI is the trade association representing most manufacturers of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment; however, AHRI does not have a subsection for computer room air conditioners, and the major manufacturers of computer room air conditioners that DOE identified are not AHRI members.
DOE initially identified manufacturers of computer room air conditioners through conversations with industry experts and by examining the California Energy Commission (CEC) appliance efficiency database.
Using the CEC database and manufacturer literature gathered from manufacturer Web sites, DOE compiled a database of 1,364 computer room air conditioner models from the five manufacturers it identified. These units included 452 air-cooled units, 248 water-cooled units without a fluid economizer, 174 water-cooled units with a fluid economizer, 237 glycol-cooled units without a fluid economizer, and 253 glycol-cooled units with a fluid economizer. These units can also be divided by size categories and orientation, and a full breakdown of the number of units in each equipment class can be found in chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD. Of the 1,364 computer room air conditioners in DOE's database, DOE was only able to obtain efficiency data for 208 units, which accounts for approximately 15 percent of the database (see section VI.B.4 of this NOPR for information about how DOE estimated efficiency data). Because computer room air conditioner manufacturers are not currently required to report efficiency information to DOE, most manufacturers do not publish efficiency information in their product literature. DOE gathered available efficiency information for two manufacturers from the CEC database (where manufacturers are required to report efficiency information in if they sell models in California) and one other manufacturer's product literature (which was the only manufacturer that provided efficiency information in their product literature). DOE did not find any efficiency information for equipment from two of the five manufacturers of computer room air conditioners.
The average SCOP for each equipment class where DOE had adequate data is shown in the Table VI.2.
Chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD contains additional information drawn from the data that was used to inform DOE's analysis, such as the average sensible capacities for each equipment class. DOE used the information gathered in the market assessment as the foundation for developing the price-efficiency relationship in the engineering analysis. Additionally, DOE used the market data, along with other sources, to estimate the shipments of computer room air conditioners. Further details regarding the development of shipments estimates and forecasts can be found in section VI.F of this NOPR.
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the cost and efficiency of a piece of equipment DOE is evaluating for potential amended energy conservation standards. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers and the Nation. The engineering analysis identifies representative baseline equipment, which is the starting point for analyzing possible energy efficiency improvements. For covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE sets the baseline at the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, because by statute, DOE cannot adopt any level below the revised ASHRAE level. The engineering analysis then identifies higher efficiency levels and the incremental increase in product cost associated with achieving the higher efficiency levels. After identifying the baseline models and cost of achieving increased efficiency, DOE estimates the additional costs to the customer through an analysis of contractor costs and markups, and uses that information in the downstream analyses to examine the costs and benefits associated with increased equipment efficiency.
DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three methodologies: (1) The design-option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which calculates the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and/or (3) the reverse-engineering or cost-assessment approach, which involves a “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill of materials derived from tear-downs of the product being analyzed.
For this analysis, DOE used an efficiency-level approach in conjunction with a pricing survey to develop the price-efficiency relationships for the various classes of computer room air conditioners. An efficiency-level approach allowed DOE to estimate the cost of achieving different SCOP levels in a timely manner (which was necessary to allow DOE to meet the statutorily-required deadlines for ASHRAE equipment in EPCA). The efficiency-level approach allowed DOE to capture a variety of designs available on the market and focused on the price of units at different SCOP ratings. The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis were representative of computer room air conditioners currently produced by manufacturers at the time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data collected from equipment distributors of three large computer room air conditioner manufacturers to develop its cost-efficiency relationship for computer room air conditioners. (See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further detail.)
Although there are certain benefits to using an efficiency-level approach with a pricing survey (namely the ability to conduct an analysis in a limited amount of time that spans a variety of equipment and technologies), DOE notes there are also drawbacks to this approach. The most significant drawback of such an approach is that equipment pricing is not always based solely on equipment cost and is often influenced by a variety of other factors. Factors such as whether the unit is a high-volume seller, whether the unit has premium features (such as more sophisticated controls or a longer warranty), and the differences in markup between different manufacturers all have an effect on the prices of computer room air conditioners. In certain instances, this can make it difficult to compare prices across manufacturers because of the number of different ways that manufacturers can decide to set pricing based on features that are not part of the basic equipment costs. As a result, the relationship between price and efficiency could be different from the relationship between manufacturer cost
Computer room air conditioners are separated into three size categories based upon the equipment's net sensible cooling capacity: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and (3) ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. For each equipment size category, DOE chose a representative capacity for analysis. The representative capacity chosen was the average sensible capacity (rounded to the nearest ton
For computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE collected data at the representative size of 36,000 Btu/h and normalized the cost to that capacity. For computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE collected data at the representative size of 132,000 Btu/h and normalized the cost to that capacity. For computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling capacity greater than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE collected data for five total units with efficiency data in these equipment classes and normalized it to a representative capacity of 288,000 Btu/h. See chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD for information about the capacity information that DOE found for equipment on the market and chapter 3 of the TSD for more detail about the representative capacities selected.
DOE selected baseline efficiency levels as reference points for each equipment class, against which it measured changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE defined the baseline efficiency levels in the engineering analysis and the LCC and PBP analyses as reference points to compare the technology, energy savings, and cost of equipment with higher energy efficiency levels. A baseline piece of equipment refers to a model having features and technologies typically found in equipment currently offered for sale. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the typical characteristics of equipment in that class. Typically, units at the baseline efficiency level just meet Federal energy conservation standards and provide basic consumer utility. However, since computer room air conditioners are a new equipment class, there are no current Federal standards for these units. Further, EPCA requires that DOE must adopt either the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels or more stringent levels. Therefore, because the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels were the lowest levels that DOE could adopt, DOE used those levels as the baseline efficiency level for the purposes of its analysis. Table VI.3 shows the baseline efficiency level for each computer room air conditioner equipment class in the downflow orientation.
Since DOE does not currently regulate computer room air conditioners, manufacturers are not required to report or rate the efficiency of their equipment. Therefore, DOE relied on efficiency information found in manufacturer literature (for those manufacturers who voluntarily rate their equipment efficiency) and in the CEC database (as CEC does require manufacturers to certify the efficiency ratings for their computer room air conditioners being sold in California). Because SCOP is a new efficiency metric in ASHRAE 127-2007, all efficiency data DOE gathered were in the form of EER, as measured by the previous version of ASHRAE 127 (
Once DOE identified representative capacities and baseline units, and selected equipment classes and efficiency levels to analyze, DOE contacted three of the manufacturers of computer room air conditioners
Due to a lack of efficiency data and small number of models on the market for certain equipment classes, DOE did not analyze each of the 30 equipment classes created by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 separately. Rather, DOE analyzed the equipment classes with the largest numbers of models on the market (and as a result the most data available) and used a variety of assumptions to extrapolate that analysis to the equipment classes with less information available.
DOE only considered downflow units in its engineering analysis. In reviewing the models available in its database, DOE found that each given equipment model (characterized by a product line and model number) was generally available in both an upflow and downflow configuration, and review of specific equipment indicated that the internal components could be optionally arranged by the manufacturer for either an upflow or downflow orientation. Therefore, DOE assumed that downflow units and upflow units generally have the same major components, but that those components are arranged differently. DOE assumed that the price of the units would likely be nearly the same and that the incremental cost of increasing efficiency would also be the same. However, DOE observed the 0.11 SCOP reduction in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for upflow units as compared to downflow units. DOE believes this difference is a result of the additional static pressure that the blower fan must overcome in the upflow orientation, as required in the ASHRAE 127 test
Among the downflow equipment classes, DOE found there was only enough efficiency information to analyze four equipment classes: (1) Small (
To extrapolate the data and generate a price-efficiency relationship for the very large (
For the three glycol-cooled equipment classes (
For the six computer room air conditioner equipment classes with a fluid economizer (
The result of the engineering analysis is a set of price-efficiency curves. Creating the price-efficiency curves involved plotting the manufacturer price versus efficiency and using an exponential regression analysis to fit a curve that best defines the aggregated data. When DOE examined the pricing data for each individual manufacturer, DOE found there was no correlation between pricing and efficiency. Only when the manufacturer data points were aggregated across all manufacturers for each equipment class did a correlation appear. Generally, there were manufacturers who sold lower-priced, lower-SCOP equipment and those who sold higher-priced, higher-SCOP equipment. DOE used an exponential regression to determine the relationship between price and efficiency across the three manufacturers. Table VI.5 and Table VI.6 below show the price-efficiency data for the four primary equipment classes, for which DOE had enough information to do a regression analysis. The results for the equipment classes where DOE had to extrapolate the price-efficiency relationship are contained in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE notes that the results for the small (< 65,000 Btu/h) water-cooled equipment class are counter-intuitive, because the correlation between price and efficiency showed a decrease in price for increased efficiency for that equipment class. This result is likely the result of not having enough data points to develop a statistically significant trend between price and efficiency. In addition, as discussed above, manufacturers might have different reasons for pricing the different features other than equipment efficiency, and, thus, there would be no correlation between efficiency and price for individual manufacturers. In DOE's experience, an inverse correlation between price and efficiency is not typical, and thus, DOE believes additional data and analysis would possibly reveal a different relationship than the pricing analysis. DOE seeks comment on the results of the pricing analysis and requests information and data regarding price-efficiency trends for computer room air conditioners. This is identified as issue 12 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments.”
DOE understands that the price of CRAC equipment depends on the distribution channel the customer uses to purchase the equipment. Typical distribution channels for most commercial HVAC equipment include shipments which may pass through manufacturers' national accounts, or through entities including wholesalers, mechanical contractors, and/or general contractors; however, DOE understands that the typical distribution channel for CRAC equipment for either new construction or replacement is that a mechanical contractor orders the equipment from a manufacturer or distributor who provides the equipment at a price delivered to the job site. The mechanical contractor then adds his own markup and provides installation services. Because of the specialized nature of the equipment, general contractors are not involved in the transaction, nor did DOE find any evidence of wholesaler involvement or national accounts for distribution of this specialized CRAC equipment. DOE developed equipment costs for mechanical contractors directly in the engineering analysis and estimated cost to customers using a markup chain beginning with the mechanical contractor cost. Because of the complexity of installation, DOE estimated most sales of CRAC equipment involved mechanical contractors. Consequently, DOE did not develop separate markups for other distribution chains.
DOE developed supply chain markups in the form of multipliers that represent increases above the mechanical contractor cost. DOE applied these markups (or multipliers) to the mechanical contractor costs it developed from the engineering analysis. DOE then added sales taxes and installation costs to arrive at the final installed equipment prices for baseline and higher-efficiency equipment. See chapter 5 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD for additional details on markups. DOE identified two separate distribution channels for CRAC equipment to describe how the equipment passes from the mechanical contractor to the customer (Table VI.7).
DOE estimated a baseline markup and an incremental markup. DOE defined a “baseline markup” as a multiplier that converts the mechanical contractor cost of equipment with baseline efficiency to the customer purchase price for the equipment at the same baseline efficiency level. An “incremental markup” is defined as the multiplier to convert the incremental increase in mechanical contractor cost of higher-efficiency equipment to the customer purchase price for the same equipment. Both baseline and incremental markups are independent of the CRAC equipment efficiency levels.
DOE developed the markups based on available financial data. DOE based the mechanical contractor markups on data from the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau financial data
The overall markup is the product of all the markups (baseline or incremental) for the different steps within a distribution channel plus sales tax. DOE calculated sales taxes based on 2010 State-by-State sales tax data reported by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
DOE's building energy use characterization assesses the annual energy use for each of the 15 classes of computer room air conditioners at the efficiency levels established in the engineering analysis. Because of the fixed 0.11 EER difference between upflow and downflow CRAC units established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and presumed in the engineering analysis for all higher efficiency levels, DOE determined that the per-unit energy savings benefits for corresponding upflow computer room air conditioners at higher efficiency levels could be adequately represented using these 15 downflow equipment classes. The energy use characterization assessed the energy use of computer room air conditioners using a purpose-built spreadsheet which estimates the annual energy consumption for each
To implement DOE's analysis methodology, DOE estimated the average heat load on each type and size of CRAC equipment based on an average thermal load set at 65 percent of the nominal sensible capacity based on an estimate provided in an Australian energy performance standards report.
DOE estimated the annual energy consumption for each equipment class at each efficiency level for 239 climate locations using typical meteorological year (TMY3) weather data.
DOE conducted the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses to estimate the economic impacts of potential standards on individual customers of CRAC equipment. DOE first analyzed these impacts for CRAC equipment by calculating the change in customers' LCCs likely to result from higher efficiency levels compared with the ASHRAE baseline efficiency levels for the 15 downflow CRAC classes discussed in the engineering analysis. DOE determined that the LCC benefits for higher efficiency levels for each downflow class of CRAC equipment would adequately represent LCC benefits for the corresponding upflow class. The LCC calculation considers total installed cost (contractor cost, sales taxes, distribution chain markups, and installation cost), operating expenses (energy, repair, and maintenance costs), equipment lifetime, and discount rate. DOE calculated the LCC for all customers as if each would purchase a new CRAC unit in the year the standard takes effect. Since DOE is considering both the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and more-stringent efficiency levels, the compliance date for a new DOE energy conservation standard for any equipment class would depend upon the efficiency level adopted. This is because the statutory lead times for DOE adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels and the adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels are different. (See section V.H.1 below for additional explanation regarding compliance dates.) However, the LCC benefits to the customer of standards higher than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 can only begin to accrue after the compliance date for such higher standard once adopted by DOE. To account for this difference and to facilitate comparison, DOE presumes that the purchase year for all CRAC equipment for purposes of the LCC calculation is 2017, the earliest year in which DOE can establish an amended energy conservation level at an efficiency level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency level. To compute LCCs, DOE discounted future operating costs to the time of purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the equipment.
Next, DOE analyzed the effect of changes in installed costs and operating expenses by calculating the PBP of potential standards relative to baseline efficiency levels. The PBP estimates the amount of time it would take the customer to recover the incremental increase in the purchase price of more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. The PBP is the change in purchase price divided by the change in annual operating cost that results from the energy conservation standard. DOE expresses this period in years. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on the total installed cost and the operating expenses. However, unlike the LCC, DOE only considers the first year's operating expenses in the PBP calculation. Because the PBP does not account for changes in operating expense over time or the time value of money, it is also referred to as a simple PBP.
DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using a commercially-available spreadsheet tool and a purpose-built spreadsheet model, available online.
Recognizing that each business that uses CRAC equipment is unique, DOE analyzed variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations assuming a correspondence between business types and market segments (characterized as building types) for customers located in three types of commercial buildings (health care, education, and office). DOE developed financial data appropriate for the customers in each building type. Each type of building has typical customers who have different costs of financing because of the nature of the business. DOE derived the financing costs based on data from the Damodaran Online site.
The LCC analysis used the estimated annual energy use for each CRAC equipment unit described in section V.D. Because energy use of CRAC equipment is sensitive to climate, energy use varies by State. Aside from energy use, other important factors influencing the LCC and PBP analyses are energy prices, installation costs, equipment distribution markups, and sales tax. All of these are assumed to vary by State. At the national level, the LCC spreadsheets explicitly modeled both the uncertainty and the variability in the model's inputs, using probability distributions based on the shipment of CRAC equipment to different States.
As mentioned above, DOE generated LCC and PBP results by building type and State and used developed weighting factors to generate national average LCC savings and PBP for each efficiency level. As there is a unique LCC and PBP for each calculated value at the building type and State level, the outcomes of the analysis can also be expressed as probability distributions with a range of LCC and PBP results. A distinct advantage of this type of approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of customers achieving LCC savings or attaining certain PBP values due to an increased efficiency level, in addition to the average LCC savings or average PBP for that efficiency level.
For each efficiency level DOE analyzed, the LCC analysis required input data for the total installed cost of the equipment, its operating cost, and the discount rate. Table VI.8 summarizes the inputs and key assumptions DOE used to calculate the customer economic impacts of all energy efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking. A more detailed discussion of the inputs follows.
The price of CRAC equipment reflects the application of distribution channel markups (mechanical contractor markups) and sales tax to the manufacturer sales price (distributor's price, delivered to the job site), which is the cost established in the engineering analysis. As described in section VI.B, DOE determined mechanical contractor costs and markup for air conditioning equipment. For each equipment class, the engineering analysis provided contractor costs for the baseline equipment and up to four higher equipment efficiencies.
The markup is the percentage increase in price as the CRAC equipment passes through the distribution channel. As explained in section VI.C, all CRAC equipment is assumed to be delivered by the manufacturer through a distributor to the mechanical contractor at the job site for installation without the involvement of a general contractor. This is assumed to happen whether the equipment is being purchased for the new construction market or to replace existing equipment.
To forecast a price trend for the NOPR, DOE derived an inflation-adjusted index of the PPI for miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment over 1990-2010. These data show a general price index decline from 1990 to 2004, followed by a sharp increase, primarily due to rising prices of copper and steel products that go into this equipment. Given the slowdown in global economic activity in 2011, DOE believes that the extent to which the trends of the past couple of years will continue is very uncertain and that the observed data provide a firm basis for projecting future costs trends for CRAC equipment. Therefore DOE used a constant price assumption as the default price factor index to project future computer room air conditioner prices in 2017. Thus, prices forecast for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to the 2011 values for each efficiency level in each equipment class. Appendix 8-D of the NOPR TSD describes the historic data and the derivation of the price forecast.
DOE requests comments on the most appropriate trend to use for real (inflation-adjusted) computer room air conditioner prices.
DOE derived national average installation costs for CRAC equipment from data provided in
For more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE recognized that installation costs could potentially be higher with larger units and higher-efficiency CRAC equipment due to larger sizes and more complex setup requirements. DOE utilized RS Means installation cost data from
DOE estimated the annual electricity consumed by each class of CRAC equipment, by efficiency level, based on the energy use characterization described in section V.D and in chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
Electricity prices are used to convert the electric energy savings from higher-efficiency equipment into energy cost savings. Because of the variation in annual electricity consumption savings and equipment costs across the country, it is important to consider regional differences in electricity prices. DOE used average effective commercial electricity prices at the State level from Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for 2010. This approach captured a wide range of commercial electricity prices across the United States. Furthermore, different kinds of businesses typically use electricity in different amounts at different times of the day, week, and year, and therefore, face different effective prices. To make this adjustment, DOE used EIA's 2003 CBECS
DOE weighted the prices each building type paid in each State by the estimated sales of CRAC equipment to each building type to obtain a weighted-average national electricity price for 2010. The State/building type weights reflect the probabilities that a given unit of CRAC equipment shipped will operate with a given fuel price. The original State-by-State average commercial prices (adjusted to 2011$) range from approximately $0.066 per kWh to approximately $0.216 per kWh. (See chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD for further details.)
The electricity price trends provide the relative change in electricity costs for future years. DOE applied the
Maintenance costs are the costs to the customer of maintaining equipment operation. Maintenance costs include services such as cleaning heat-exchanger coils and changing air filters. DOE estimated annual routine maintenance costs for CRAC equipment as $84 per year for capacities up to 288 kBtu per hr and $102 per year for larger capacities, reported in the
The repair cost is the cost to the customer of replacing or repairing components that have failed in the CRAC equipment. DOE estimated the one-time repair cost in
DOE defines “equipment lifetime” as the age when a unit of CRAC equipment is retired from service. DOE reviewed available literature to establish typical equipment lifetimes. The literature offered a wide range of typical equipment lifetimes ranging from 10 years to 25 years. The data did not distinguish between classes of CRAC equipment. Consequently, DOE used a distribution of lifetimes between 10 and 25 years, with an average of 15 years based on review of a range of CRAC lifetime estimates found in published studies and online documents and applied this distribution to all classes of CRAC equipment analyzed. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD contains a discussion of equipment lifetime.
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to establish their present value. DOE determined the discount rate by estimating the cost of capital for purchasers of CRAC equipment. Most purchasers use both debt and equity capital to fund investments. Therefore, for most purchasers, the discount rate is the weighted-average cost of debt and equity financing, or the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC), less the expected inflation.
To estimate the WACC of CRAC equipment purchasers, DOE used a sample of over 2000 companies grouped to be representative of operators of each of three commercial building types (health care, education, and office) drawn from a database of 7,369 U.S. companies presented on the Damodaran Online Web site.
DOE used the final sample of companies to represent purchasers of CRAC equipment. For each company in the sample, DOE derived the cost of debt, percent debt financing, and systematic company risk from information on the Damodaran Online Web site. Damodaran estimated the cost of debt financing from the long-term Federal government bond rate (6.74 percent) and the standard deviation of the stock price. DOE then determined the weighted average values for the cost of debt, range of values, and standard deviation of WACC for each category of the sample companies. Deducting expected inflation from the cost of capital provided estimates of real discount rate by ownership category. Based on this database, DOE calculated the weighted average after-tax discount rate for CRAC equipment purchases, adjusted for inflation, in each of the three building types used in the analysis. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD contains the detailed calculations on the discount rate.
DOE also determined the economic impact of potential amended energy conservation standards on customers by calculating the PBP of more-stringent efficiency levels relative to a baseline efficiency level. The PBP measures the amount of time it takes the commercial customer to recover the assumed higher purchase expense of more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on the total installed cost and the operating expenses for each building type and State, weighted on the probability of shipment to each market. Because the simple PBP does not take into account changes in operating expense over time or the time value of money, DOE considered only the first
The national impact analysis (NIA) evaluates the effects of a proposed energy conservation standard from a national perspective rather than from the customer perspective represented by the LCC. This analysis assesses the net present value (NPV) (future amounts discounted to the present) and the National Energy Savings (NES) of total commercial customer costs and savings, which are expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels. For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and NES for adopting more-stringent standards than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. The NES refers to cumulative energy savings from 2012 through 2041 or 2013 through 2042, depending on the product class. DOE calculated new energy savings in each year relative to a base case, defined as DOE adoption of the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE also calculated energy savings from adopting efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 compared to the current market base case. The NPV refers to cumulative monetary savings. DOE calculated net monetary savings in each year relative to the base case (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010) as the difference between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed cost. Cumulative savings are the sum of the annual NPV over the specified period. DOE accounted for operating cost savings until 2055 or 2056, when the equipment installed in the 30th year after the compliance date of the amended standards should be retired.
The NES and NPV are a function of the total number of units in use and their efficiencies. Both the NES and NPV depend on annual shipments and equipment lifetime. Both calculations start by using the shipments estimate and the quantity of units in service derived from the shipments model.
With regard to estimating the NES, because more-efficient computer room air conditioners are expected to gradually replace less-efficient ones, the energy per unit of capacity used by the computer room air conditioners in service gradually decreases in the standards case relative to the base case. DOE calculated the NES by subtracting energy use under a standards-case scenario from energy use in a base-case scenario.
Unit energy savings for each equipment class are taken from the LCC spreadsheet for each efficiency level and weighted based on market efficiency distributions. To estimate the total energy savings for each efficiency level, DOE first calculated the national site energy consumption (
DOE considered whether a rebound effect is applicable in its NES analysis. A rebound effect occurs when an increase in equipment efficiency leads to an increased demand for its service. EIA in its National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) model assumes a certain elasticity factor to account for an increased demand for service due to the increase in cooling (or heating) efficiency.
The first instance does not occur often because computer rooms are generally cooled to the level required for safe operation of the servers and other equipment. As inanimate objects, computers have no desire for further cooling, and persons maintaining the equipment have no reason to deviate from the optimal range of environmental conditions. With regard to the second instance, computer room air conditioners are unlikely to be installed in previously uncooled computer rooms, because servers and other equipment that need to be cooled or otherwise space conditioned to the degree of precision that requires a computer room air conditioner already would be. Given the potential for computer equipment damage or diminished performance, running a computer room without the appropriate environmental controls from the outset is highly unlikely. Therefore, DOE did not assume a rebound effect in the present NOPR analysis. DOE seeks input from interested parties on whether there will be a rebound effect for improvements in the efficiency of computer room air conditioners. If interested parties believe a rebound effect would occur, DOE is interested in receiving data quantifying the effects, as well as input regarding how should DOE quantify this in its analysis. This is identified as Issue 14 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section X.E of today's NOPR.
To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the net impact as the difference between total operating cost savings (including electricity cost savings) and increases in total installed costs (including customer prices). DOE calculated the NPV of each considered standard level over the life of the equipment using the following three steps. First, DOE determined the difference between the equipment costs under the standard-level case and the base case in order to obtain the net equipment cost increase resulting from the higher standard level. As noted in section VI.E.2.a, DOE used a constant price assumption as the default price forecast. Second, DOE determined the difference between the base-case operating costs and the standard-level operating costs in order to obtain the net operating cost savings from each higher efficiency level. Third, DOE determined the difference between the net operating cost savings and the net equipment cost increase in order to obtain the net savings (or expense) for each year. DOE then discounted the annual net savings (or expenses) to 2012 for computer room
To make the analysis more transparent to all interested parties, DOE used a commercially-available spreadsheet tool to calculate the energy savings and the national economic costs and savings from potential amended standards. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD explains the models and how to use them. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet.
Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not use distributions for inputs or outputs, but relies on national average first costs and energy costs developed from the LCC spreadsheet. DOE used the NES spreadsheet to perform calculations of energy savings and NPV using the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the energy savings, energy cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of benefits for equipment sold in each computer room air conditioner class from 2012 through 2041 or 2013 through 2042, depending on the product class. The forecasts provided annual and cumulative values for all four output parameters described above.
Equipment shipments are an important element in the estimate of the future impact of a potential standard. DOE developed shipment projections and, in turn, calculated equipment stock by assuming that in each year, each existing computer room air conditioner either ages by one year or breaks down after a 15-year equipment life. DOE used the shipments projection and the equipment stock to determine the NES. The shipments portion of the spreadsheet model forecasts computer room air conditioner shipments from 2012 or 2013 to 2041 or 2042, depending on the product class.
Data on computer room air conditioner shipments in the U.S. were not available. To estimate U.S. shipments, DOE obtained historical and projected (2000-2020) computer room air conditioner shipment data from an Australian energy performance standards report.
DOE allocated overall shipments into product classes using a two-step process. First, DOE used Australian market share to allocate shipments to six broad product classes. DOE then used the relative fraction of models for each equipment class reflected in DOE's market database to allocate shipments further into the 15 product classes analyzed. The complete discussion of shipment allocation can be found in chapter 7 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD.
Table VI.10 shows the forecasted shipments for the different equipment classes of computer room air conditioners for selected years from 2012 to 2042 (with start and end years dependent on the product class), as well as the cumulative shipments. As equipment purchase price and repair costs increase with efficiency, DOE recognizes that higher first costs and repair costs can result in a drop in shipments. However, DOE had no basis for estimating the elasticity of shipments for computer room air conditioners as a function of first costs, repair costs, or operating costs. In addition, because computer room air conditioners are necessary for their application, DOE believes shipments would not change as a result of higher first costs and repair costs. Therefore, DOE presumed that the shipments projection does not change with higher standard levels. DOE seeks input on this assumption. This is identified as Issue 15 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section X.E of today's NOPR. Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides additional details on the shipments forecasts.
DOE reviewed the distribution of efficiency levels for commercially-available models within each equipment class in order to develop base-case efficiency distributions. DOE bundled the efficiency levels into “efficiency ranges” and determined the percentage of models within each range. DOE applied the percentages of models within each efficiency range to the total unit shipments for a given equipment class to estimate the distribution of shipments within the base case. Then, from those market shares and projections of shipments by equipment class, DOE extrapolated future equipment efficiency trends both for a base-case scenario and for standards-case scenarios. The difference in equipment efficiency between the base case and standards cases was the basis for determining the reduction in per-unit annual energy consumption that could result from amended standards.
For the base case, DOE had no basis to estimate potential change in efficiency market shares. Therefore, DOE assumed that, absent amended standards, forecasted market shares would remain frozen until the end of the forecast period (30 years after the compliance date). This prediction could cause DOE to overestimate the savings associated with the higher efficiency levels discussed in this notice because computer room air conditioner efficiencies or relative efficiency class preferences may change voluntarily over time.
For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the year that compliance would be required with amended standards (
The base-case efficiency distributions for each equipment class are presented in chapter 7 of the TSD. DOE seeks input on its basis for the NES-forecasted base-case distribution of efficiencies and its prediction of how amended energy conservation standards would affect the distribution of efficiencies in the standards case. This is identified as Issue 16 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section X.E of today's NOPR.
The computer room air conditioner equipment stock is the total number of computer room air conditioners in each equipment class purchased or shipped from previous years that have survived until the point at which stock is taken. The NES spreadsheet,
The national annual energy consumption is the product of the annual unit energy consumption and the number of computer room air conditioner units of each vintage in the stock, summed over all vintages. This approach accounts for differences in unit energy consumption from year to year. In determining national annual energy consumption, DOE calculated the annual energy consumption at the site (
Table VI.11 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model along with a brief description of the data sources. The results of DOE's NES and NPV analysis are summarized in section VIII.B.3.b below and described in detail in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
Generally, covered equipment to which a new or amended energy conservation standard applies must comply with the standard if such equipment is manufactured or imported on or after a specified date. In today's NOPR, DOE is evaluating whether more-stringent efficiency levels than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 would be technologically feasible, economically justified, and result in a significant amount of energy savings. If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards at the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, EPCA states that compliance with any such standards shall be required on or after a date which is two or three years (depending on equipment size) after the compliance date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE/IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) DOE has applied this two-year or three-year implementation period to determine the compliance date of any energy conservation standard equal to the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 proposed by this rulemaking. Thus, if DOE decides to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, the compliance date of the rulemaking would be dependent upon the date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or its publication date, if none is specified.
The rule would apply to equipment <65,000 Btu/h (10 product classes
If DOE were to propose a rule prescribing energy conservation standards higher than the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, EPCA states that compliance with any such standards is required for products manufactured on or after a date which is four years after the date the rule is published in the
Table VI.12 presents the anticipated compliance dates of an amended energy conservation standard for each equipment class for which DOE
In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
SO
The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO
As discussed above, the
In the absence of caps, a DOE energy conservation standard could reduce Hg emissions, and DOE used NEMS-BT to estimate these reductions. Although at present there are no national, Federally binding regulations for mercury from EGUs, on March 16, 2011, EPA proposed national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 76 FR 24976. The NESHAPs do not include a trading program and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. However, for the emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury emissions reductions using NEMS-BT based on
As part of the development of this proposed rule, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
For today's NOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis for those values is provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of reducing CO
As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council
Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Consistent with the directive in Executive Order 12866 discussed above, the purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to make it possible for agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions.
For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are constant for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does not attempt to answer that question here.
At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO
It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as substantially updated models become available, and to continue to support research in this area. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the model year 2011 CAFE final rule, the Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a “domestic” SCC value of $2 per ton of CO
A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton of CO
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO
Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which were considered for this proposed rule. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models.
Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers' best estimates and judgments.
The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. For emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms over time, as depicted in Table VII.1.
It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of concerns and problems that should be addressed by the research community, including research programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the interagency process to estimate the SCC.
DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the SCC used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S. Government intend to periodically review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context, statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for further research take on exceptional significance.
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO
DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO
DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.
The methodology for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled products was presented in the May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637-40 (May 5, 2011). Table VIII.1 presents the baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled products subject to today's proposed rule. The baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and higher efficiency levels where equipment is currently available on the market.
Table VIII.2 presents the baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of VRF water-source heat pumps subject to today's proposed rule and with equipment on the market. The baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and higher efficiency levels where equipment is currently available on the market.
Table VIII.3 presents the market baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of computer room air conditioners subject to today's proposed rule. The market baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and efficiency levels above those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 where equipment is currently available on the market. Note that for the economic analysis, efficiency levels above those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as the baseline rather than the market baseline.
DOE estimated the potential primary energy savings in quads (
DOE estimated the potential primary energy savings in quads (
To evaluate the economic impact of the efficiency levels on commercial customers, DOE conducted an LCC analysis for each efficiency level. More-efficient computer room air conditioners would affect these customers in two ways: (1) Annual operating expense would decrease; and (2) purchase price would increase. Inputs used for calculating the LCC include total installed costs (
The output of the LCC model is a mean LCC savings (or cost
DOE also performed a PBP analysis as part of the LCC analysis. The PBP is the number of years it would take for the customer to recover the increased costs of higher-efficiency equipment as a result of energy savings based on the operating cost savings. The PBP is an economic benefit-cost measure that uses benefits and costs without discounting. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses provided five key outputs for each efficiency level above the baseline (
To estimate the energy savings through 2041 or 2042 due to amended energy conservation standards, DOE compared the energy consumption of computer room air conditioners under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels to energy consumption of computer room air conditioners under higher efficiency standards. DOE also compared the energy consumption of computer room air conditioners under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels to energy consumption of computer room air conditioners under the current market base case. DOE examined up to four efficiency levels higher than those of ASHRAE Standard
The NPV analysis is a measure of the cumulative benefit or cost of standards to the Nation. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003)), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns to real estate and small business capital, as well as corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the opportunity cost of capital in the private sector, because recent OMB analysis has found the average rate of return on capital to be near this rate. DOE also used the 3-percent rate to capture the potential effects of standards on private customers' consumption (
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced electricity demand from energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, Table VIII.32 presents the estimated reduction in generating capacity in 2042 attributable to the efficiency levels that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy savings from standards for the product classes covered in today's NOPR could also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table VIII.33 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative CO
As discussed in section VII.A, DOE did not report SO
As part of the analysis for this proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
Table VIII.34 presents the global value of CO
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO
EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if “clear and convincing evidence” shows that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE reviewed the results in terms of the significance of their energy savings. For the reasons discussed in section IV.B, DOE agrees with commenters that the energy savings from increasing national energy conservation standards for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment above the levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 would be very minimal. As such, DOE does not have “clear and convincing evidence” that significant additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent standard levels. Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are economically justified, and DOE is proposing to adopt the energy efficiency levels for these products as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Table VIII.36 presents the proposed energy conservation standards and compliance dates for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment.
As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if “clear and convincing evidence” shows that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE reviewed the results in terms of the significance of their energy savings. For the reasons discussed in section VIII.B.2, the energy savings for more-stringent efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps greater than 135,000 Btu/h would be minimal. In addition, there are no models on the market of VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, so there are no energy savings predicted for this product class. As such, DOE does not have “clear and convincing evidence” that significant additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are economically justified, and DOE is proposing to adopt the energy efficiency levels for these products as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if “clear and convincing evidence” shows that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for computer room air conditioner than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE reviewed the results in terms of their technological feasibility, significance of energy savings, and economic justification.
DOE has tentatively concluded that all of the SCOP levels considered by DOE are technologically feasible, as units with equivalent efficiency appeared to be available in the current market at all levels examined. As noted in section VI.B.4, manufacturers are currently not reporting CRAC equipment efficiencies in terms of SCOP as defined and tested for in ASHRAE 127-2007. As a result, the efficiency data used to determine the SCOP levels for analysis were obtained using a rule-of-thumb method to convert EER (as determined using ASHRAE Standard 127-2001) to an estimate of the SCOP
DOE examined the potential energy savings that would result from the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and compared these to the potential energy savings that would result from efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE estimates that 0.01 quads of energy would be saved if DOE adopts the efficiency levels set in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for each computer room air conditioner equipment class specified in that standard. If DOE were to adopt efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, the potential additional energy savings range from 0.07 quads to 0.98 quads. Associated with proposing more-stringent efficiency levels is a three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year delay in implementation (depending on equipment size) compared to the adoption of energy conservation standards at the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (see section VI.G.1). This delay in implementation of amended energy conservation standards would result in a small amount of energy savings being lost in the first years (2012 through 2016) compared to the savings from adopting the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (approximately 0.0001 quad); however, this loss may be compensated for by increased savings in later years. Taken in isolation, the energy savings associated with more-stringent standards might be considered significant enough to warrant adoption of such standards. However, as noted above, energy savings are not the only factor which DOE must consider.
In considering whether potential standards are economically justified, DOE also examined the NPV that would result from adopting efficiency levels more stringent than those set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. With a 7-percent discount rate, all of the efficiency levels examined by DOE resulted in negative NPV. With a 3-percent discount rate, Level 1 creates positive NPV, while Levels 2 through 4 create negative NPV. These results indicate that adoption of efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as Federal energy conservation standards would likely lead to negative economic outcomes for the nation. Consequently, this criterion for adoption of more-stringent standard levels does not appear to have been met.
Furthermore, although DOE based it analyses on the best available data when examining the potential energy savings and the economic justification of efficiency levels more stringent than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE believes there are several limitations regarding that data which should be considered before proposing amended energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners. As explained below, none of these concerns are likely to run in the direction of more-stringent standards.
First, DOE reexamined the uncertainty in its analysis of computer room air conditioners. As noted in section VI.B.4, due to the lack of current coverage and certification requirements, no manufacturers currently test for the SCOP of their computer room air conditioner models, nor do they all report such information in their literature. DOE's efficiency information used in the analysis was the result of a “rule-of-thumb” method that provides an approximation of SCOP, but DOE did not obtain any actual SCOP efficiency information that resulted from testing, leading to uncertainty over whether the levels considered (particularly at the max-tech level) are technologically feasible and also adding uncertainty in the energy savings estimates. In addition, for certain equipment classes, DOE was unable to obtain enough information even to estimate SCOP for a useful portion of the models on the market. For those equipment classes, DOE had to analyze various efficiency levels above the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels using SCOP levels that were estimated based on the SCOP differences established by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 between the different equipment classes. The combination of these factors leads to concerns about the viability of using the estimated SCOP data for the basis of this analysis. Such concerns are heightened the further one moves away from the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 in the context of this rulemaking.
Second, to assess the cost of increasing efficiency, DOE conducted a pricing survey in which DOE collected contractor price data across a range of efficiency levels, and examined the trend in price as efficiency increased. As noted in section VI.B.1, the primary drawback to this approach is that contractor pricing can be based on a variety of factors, some of which have little or nothing to do with changes in equipment efficiency (
Third, due to the limited data on the existing distribution of shipments by efficiency level or historical efficiency trends, DOE was not able to assess possible future changes in either the available efficiencies of equipment in the computer room air conditioner market or the sales distribution of shipments by efficiency level in the absence of setting more-stringent standards. DOE recognizes that manufacturers may continue to make future improvements in the computer room air conditioner efficiencies even in the absence of mandated energy conservation standards. This possibility increases the uncertainty of the energy savings estimates. To the extent that manufacturers improve product efficiency and customers choose to purchase improved products in the absence of standards, the energy savings estimates would likely be reduced.
Fourth, as a result of a lack of shipment information for the United States, DOE's shipment analysis rests primarily on a single market report from Australia. While DOE attempted to use an appropriate inflator to adjust Australian shipments to the United States market, DOE recognizes the uncertainty inherent in this approach. DOE also based its equipment class allocations on market share for a few classes from the Australian report, as well as model availability in the United States. It is unknown whether the United States market mirrors the Australian market or whether model
In light of the above, DOE would again restate the statutory test for adopting energy conservation standards more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE must have “clear and convincing” evidence in order to propose efficiency levels more stringent than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, and for the reasons explained in this notice, the totality of information does not meet the level necessary to support these more-stringent efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners. Consequently, DOE has tentatively decided to propose the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as amended energy conservation standards for all 30 computer room air conditioner equipment classes. Table VIII.38 presents the proposed energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners.
By proposing to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as amended energy conservation standards, DOE would be setting a minimum floor for these previously unregulated products. This would allow the industry time to transition to coverage of these products, would require manufacturers to begin submitting efficiency data, and would spur the tracking of shipments. These data would improve DOE's future analysis of computer room air conditioners. DOE notes that it will be able to undertake such an analysis without waiting for the trigger of a subsequent amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, because of the six-year look back provision in the relevant EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
DOE seeks comments from interested parties on its proposed amended energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners, as well as the other efficiency levels considered. Although DOE currently believes that it would be appropriate to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for computer room air conditioners, DOE may consider the possibility of setting standards at more-stringent efficiency levels if public comments and additional data supply clear and convincing evidence in support of such an approach.
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The problems that the standards in this rule address are as follows:
(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the commercial equipment market.
(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow air conditioners, and computer room air conditioners that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is not an “economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for today's rule, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy conservation standards proposed in this NOPR maximize net benefits to the extent permitted by EPCA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For manufacturers of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, computer room air conditioners, and VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at
DOE examined each of the manufacturers it found during its market assessment and used publicly-available information to determine if any manufacturers identified qualify as a small business under the SBA guidelines discussed above. (For a list of all manufacturers of ASHRAE equipment covered by this rule, see Chapter 2 of the TSD.) DOE's research involved individual company Web sites, marketing research tools (
DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. As part of this rulemaking, DOE examined not only the impacts on manufacturers of revised standard levels, but also the existing compliance costs manufacturers already bear as compared to the revised compliance costs, based on the proposed revisions to the test procedures. Since DOE is proposing to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, which are part of the prevailing industry standard, DOE believes that manufacturers of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, computer room air conditioners, and VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h are already producing equipment at these efficiency levels. For VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity below 17,000 Btu/h, DOE believes the efficiency levels being proposed in today's NOPR are also part of the prevailing industry standard and that manufacturers would experience no impacts, because no such equipment is currently manufactured. Furthermore, DOE believes the industry standard was developed through a process which would attempt to mitigate the impacts on manufacturers, including any impacted small business manufacturers, while increasing the efficiency of this equipment.
In addition, DOE does not find that the costs associated with the adoption of updated test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, commercial water heating equipment, or commercial warm-air furnaces in this document would result in any significant increase in testing or compliance costs. For these types of equipment, DOE already has testing requirements, which have only minor differences from those being adopted in this notice. DOE notes that this document proposes adoption of new test procedures for VRF systems and computer room air conditioners. However, VRF systems currently must be tested using the DOE test procedures for commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment. The procedure proposed for adoption in this NOPR is tailored to VRF systems, and DOE does not believe this procedure is more burdensome than the currently applicable test procedures. For computer room air conditioners, this notice proposes the use of a new test procedure where none was previously required. However, for all equipment types (including computer room air conditioners) the proposed test procedures are part of the prevailing industry standard to test and rate equipment. DOE believes that manufacturers generally already use the accepted industry test procedures when testing their equipment, and that given its inclusion in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, they would continue to use it in the future. Therefore, DOE does not believe the additional burden imposed by today's proposal will have a significant adverse impact on a large number of small manufacturers. DOE requests public comment on the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This is identified as issue 18 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
For the reasons stated above, DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, DOE did not prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule. DOE will transmit its certification and a supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of the ASHRAE equipment addressed in today's NOPR must certify to DOE that their equipment comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment according to the applicable DOE test procedures for the given equipment type, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including the ASHRAE equipment at issue in this NOPR. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
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.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)) imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
Today's proposed rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the UMRA.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must provide a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that today's regulatory action, which sets forth energy conservation standards for certain types of ASHRAE equipment, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this notice, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the public meeting. Such persons may hand-deliver requests to speak to the address show in the
DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least one week before the public meeting. DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Program. As necessary, request to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings, as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking, until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be posted on the DOE Web site and will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a compact disc (CD), if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comment on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. How manufacturers currently differentiate commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment used solely for manufacturing and industrial processes from that equipment of the same type that is used in buildings.
2. Any aspect of the test procedures affected by this rule as part of DOE's comprehensive 7-year-review requirement.
3. DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 210/240-2008 as the test procedure for small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. DOE is also interested in receiving comment on the need for an optional “break-in” period for this equipment, and whether 16 hours is an appropriate maximum length for the break-in period.
4. DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 340/360-2007 as the test procedure for small (≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. DOE is also interested in receiving comment on the need for an optional “break-in” period for this equipment, and whether 16 hours is an appropriate maximum length for the break-in period.
5. DOE's proposed adoption of ANSI Z21.10.3-2006 for commercial water heating equipment, and DOE's finding that the updated test method will not impact measured efficiency.
6. DOE's proposed adoption of ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 for computer room air conditioners. DOE is also interested in receiving comment on how to treat the draft revisions that ASHRAE has made to standard 127, and on any shortcomings with the test procedure that may require modification.
7. DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 1230-2010 with Amendment 1 for VRF systems. DOE is also interested in receiving comment on the need for an optional “break-in” period for this equipment, and whether 16 hours is an appropriate maximum length for the break-in period.
8. DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 390-2003 as the test procedure for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. DOE is also interested in receiving comment on the need for an optional “break-in” period for this equipment, and whether 16 hours is an appropriate maximum length for the break-in period.
9. The testing conditions, the basic model operating points, and set-up for variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps.
10. DOE's proposed definitions of “variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioner,” “variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump,” and “heat recovery.”
11. DOE's proposed definition of “computer room air conditioner.” DOE is specifically interested in whether there are any physical features or components that could allow DOE to differentiate between computer room air conditioners and commercial package air conditioners used for comfort conditioning
12. The results of DOE's pricing analysis, and any data or information on the price-efficiency relationship for computer room air conditioners
13. Does computer room air conditioner installation cost increase as a function of increased efficiency? If so, how should the increase in cost be estimated or derived?
14. Is there a rebound effect in computer room air conditioner equipment energy use as a result of improvements in the efficiency of such units?
15. Would shipments of computer room air conditioners change with higher standard levels?
16. The NES-forecasted base-case distribution of efficiencies and DOE's prediction of how amended energy conservation standards might affect the distribution of efficiencies in the standards case.
17. The need for an optional “break-in” period for computer room air conditioners, similar to the period being proposed for other types of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment.
18. The impact of DOE's proposed standards on small business manufacturers.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice of proposed rulemaking.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
2. Section 431.2 is amended by revising the definition of “Commercial HVAC & WH product” to read as follows:
3. Section 431.75 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) ANSI Z21.47-2006, “
(2) Reserved.
(c)
(1) ASHRAE Standard 103-1993, sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and 11.3.7, “
(2) Reserved.
(d)
(1) HI BTS-2000, sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2, “
(2) Reserved.
(e)
(1) UL Standard 727-2006, “
(2) Reserved.
4. Section 431.76 is revised to read as follows:
(a) This section covers the test procedures you must follow if, pursuant to EPCA, you are measuring the steady-state thermal efficiency of a gas-fired or oil-fired commercial warm air furnace with a rated maximum input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more. Where this section prescribes use of ANSI Standard Z21.47-2006 or UL Standard 727-2006, (incorporated by reference, see § 431.75), perform only the procedures pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2) Adjustment to the Thermal Efficiency for Condensing Furnace. You must adjust the thermal efficiency as calculated in paragraph (d)(1) of this section by adding the latent gain, expressed in percent, from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue condensate down the drain), also expressed in percent, both as calculated in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, to obtain the thermal efficiency of a condensing furnace.
5. Section 431.92, is amended by adding the definitions “Computer room air conditioner,” “Heat Recovery,” “Sensible Coefficient of Performance, or SCOP,” “Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner” and “Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump,” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
6. Section 431.95 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) AHRI Standard 210/240-2008, “
(2) AHRI Standard 310/380-2004 (CSA C744-04), “
(3) AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, “
(4) AHRI Standard 390-2003, “
(5) AHRI Standard 1230-2010, “
(6) Reserved.
(c)
(1) ASHRAE Standard 127-2007, “
(2) Reserved.
(d)
(1) ISO Standard 13256-1, “
(2) Reserved.
7. Section 431.96 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
8. Section 431.97 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Each commercial air conditioner or heat pump (not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant flow systems) manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this section.
(b) Each packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured on or after January 1, 1994, and before October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and before October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 4 of this section. Each PTAC and PTHP manufactured on or after October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and on or after October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this section.
(c) Each single package vertical air conditioner and heat pump manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.
(d) Each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after October 29, 2012, and each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after October 29, 2013, must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.
(e) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump manufactured on or after the effective date listed in this table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.
9. Add a new section 431.104 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) ASTM Standard Test Method C177-97, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus.”
(2) ASTM Standard Test Method C518-91, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.”
(3) ASTM Standard Test Method D2156-80, “Method for Smoke Density in Flue Gases from Burning Distillate Fuels.”
10. Section 431.105 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) ANSI Z21.10.3-2004, CSA 4.3-2004, Sections 2.1.7, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.30, Figure 3, and Exhibit G,
(2) Reserved.
11. Section 431.106 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)