National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Council on Environmental Quality
Council on Environmental Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Tampa Bay in St. Petersburg, Florida during Festival of States 2012 Night Parade Fireworks Display on Thursday, March 22, 2012. The safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on March 22, 2012.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0110 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Marine Science Technician Second Class Chad R. Griffiths, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of the fireworks display with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the fireworks display. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the fireworks display.
For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to protect the public from the hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States.
On Thursday, March 22, 2012, the Festival of States 2012 Night Parade Fireworks Display is scheduled to take place in St. Petersburg, Florida. The fireworks will be launched from Spa Beach, and the fireworks will explode over Tampa Bay. The fireworks display is scheduled to commence at 8:45 p.m. and conclude at approximately 9:45 p.m.
The temporary safety zone encompasses certain waters of Tampa Bay in St. Petersburg, Florida. The safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. on March 22, 2012, 45 minutes prior to the scheduled commencement of the fireworks display at approximately 8:45 p.m., to ensure the safety zone is clear of persons and vessels.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7524, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for only two hours; (2) vessel traffic in the area will be minimal during the enforcement period; (3) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Tampa Bay encompassed within the safety zone from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on March 22, 2012. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced for only two hours. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7524, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Council on Environmental Quality.
Notice of availability, final guidance.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing its final guidance on Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA provide numerous techniques for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews. CEQ is issuing this guidance for Federal departments and agencies to emphasize and clarify that these techniques are available for all NEPA Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. These techniques are consistent with a thorough and meaningful environmental review and agencies using these techniques should keep in mind the following basic principles: NEPA encourages straightforward and concise reviews and documentation that are proportionate to potential impacts and effectively convey the relevant considerations in a timely manner to the public and decision makers, while rigorously addressing the issues presented; NEPA shall be integrated into project planning to ensure planning and decisions reflect environmental considerations, avoid delays later in the process, and anticipate and attempt to resolve issues, rather than be an after-the-fact process that justifies decisions already made; NEPA reviews should coordinate and take appropriate advantage of existing documents and studies, including through adoption and incorporation by reference; early and well-defined scoping can assist in focusing environmental reviews on appropriate issues that would be meaningful to a decision on the proposed action; agencies are encouraged to develop meaningful, predictable, and expeditious timelines for environmental reviews; and agencies should respond to comments in proportion to the scope and scale of the environmental issues raised. This guidance applies equally to the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement consistent with legal precedent and agency NEPA experience and practice. This guidance does not change or substitute for any law, regulations, or any other legally binding requirement. It does provide CEQ's interpretation of existing regulations promulgated under NEPA.
The guidance is effective March 12, 2012.
The Council on Environmental Quality (ATTN: Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for National Environmental Policy Act Oversight), 722 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202) 395-5750.
Enacted in 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4346b, is a fundamental tool used to harmonize our environmental, economic, and social aspirations and is a cornerstone of our Nation's efforts to protect the environment. NEPA recognizes that many Federal activities
The guidance addresses numerous individual issues associated with the NEPA review process in a manner that meets the CEQ goals of promoting techniques that will modernize the use of NEPA, enabling agencies to more effectively and efficiently make use of the NEPA. The individual issues addressed include the use of concise NEPA documents focused on particular environmental issues, the integration of NEPA into preliminary parts of the planning process, and a more prevalent role of scoping in the development of NEPA reviews. The guidance also advises agencies to collaborate with other Federal, State, local, or Tribal agencies and representatives as well as to coordinate reviews and documents with other laws to allow for greater efficiency. It further explains the procedures to adopt other Federal agency reviews and to incorporate by reference information and analyses contained in other documents, and emphasizes the need for reasonable and proportionate responses to comments within the NEPA process. Finally, the guidance recommends agencies use appropriate time limits to promote efficiency. Thus, this guidance offers concrete tools for NEPA reviews to facilitate a more targeted, efficient, and informative analysis of environmental issues and impacts.
This guidance provides CEQ's interpretation of existing regulations promulgated under NEPA, and does not change agencies' obligations with regard to NEPA and the CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA.
The
Many commenters felt that the draft guidance was merely a rehash of previous guidance issued by the CEQ, with no new insights or procedures for making the NEPA process more efficient. This guidance highlights and focuses on the existing provisions under the CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA and clarifies that they are available for the preparation of Environmental Assessments, as well as Environmental Impact Statements, so that Federal agencies can focus on specific techniques that provide the best use of agency resources in ensuring a timely, effective, and efficient NEPA review. This guidance applies equally to the preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements consistent with legal precedent and agencies' NEPA experience and practice. It does not create or endorse any new requirements or obligations that would lengthen the process.
Comments on the strength of the draft guidance varied widely, with some commenters finding that the guidance did not do enough to force agencies to expedite review and other commenters feared the guidance weakened the importance of NEPA for agency decision making. The guidance reinforces and clarifies what Federal agencies should do, and are already allowed to do, under NEPA and the CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations. For example, the second principle on integrating NEPA with planning now states that agencies “shall” integrate NEPA into project planning which reflects the direction provided in current regulations. When Congress enacted NEPA, it charged CEQ with interpreting the statute. Pursuant to its authority, over the years CEQ has issued guidance on a variety of topics. Today's guidance provides CEQ's interpretation of its already established regulations promulgated for NEPA implementation and does not change agencies' obligations with regard to those regulations.
Some comments desired further emphasis on the public participation component of NEPA as a part of this guidance, or felt that the lack of public participation guidance in this document suggested that public participation is not viewed by the CEQ to be an integral part of the NEPA process. The CEQ believes that public participation is a crucial and integral part of NEPA, and the portions of this guidance which address public participation do nothing to change or deemphasize this fact. The focus of much of this guidance is on the review and implementation procedures of agencies, especially the physical writing of NEPA documents and internal agency review procedures which do not have a direct interaction with the public. Earlier CEQ guidance has emphasized the importance of public participation; see, for example the guidance for developing and using categorical exclusions available at
For reasons stated in the preamble, above, CEQ issues the following guidance on Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. The final guidance is provided here and is available on the National Environmental Policy Act Web site (
A wide array of tools is available to meet the goal of high quality, efficient, and timely environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations implementing NEPA contain a number of opportunities for achieving this goal. CEQ is issuing this guidance for Federal departments and agencies to emphasize and clarify those opportunities, fully consistent with a thorough and meaningful environmental review. The guidance also makes it clear that many of the provisions of the CEQ Regulations which specifically refer to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provide efficiencies that can also be used to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). This guidance applies equally to the preparation of an EA or an EIS consistent with legal precedent and agency NEPA experience and practice.
In conducting all environmental reviews pursuant to NEPA, agencies should use the methods set out in the CEQ Regulations and in their own agency NEPA implementing procedures in a way that is mindful of the following basic principles:
• NEPA encourages straightforward and concise reviews and documentation that are proportionate to potential impacts and effectively convey the relevant considerations to the public and decisionmakers in a timely manner while rigorously addressing the issues presented;
• NEPA shall be integrated into project planning to ensure planning and decisions reflect environmental considerations, avoid delays later in the process, and anticipate and attempt to resolve potential issues rather than be an after-the-fact process that justifies a decision already made;
• NEPA reviews should coordinate and take appropriate advantage of existing documents and studies, including through adoption and incorporation by reference;
• Early and well-defined scoping can assist in focusing environmental reviews on appropriate issues that would be meaningful to a decision;
• Agencies are encouraged to develop meaningful and expeditious timelines for environmental reviews; and
• Agencies should respond to comments in proportion to the scope and scale of the environmental issues raised.
This guidance also reflects CEQ's continuing commitment to implement its Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations (“Plan”) in accordance with Executive Order 13563.
CEQ was created by NEPA in 1970 and is charged with overseeing NEPA implementation by Federal agencies. In 1978, CEQ issued the CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their proposed action, and any reasonable alternatives, before deciding whether and in what form to take an action. Environmental reviews prepared under NEPA should provide a decisionmaker and the public with relevant and timely information, and the CEQ Regulations make it clear that “NEPA's purpose is not to generate paperwork—even excellent paperwork—but to foster excellent action.”
NEPA compliance can take three forms, a Categorical Exclusion, an EA, or an EIS:
• Categorical Exclusion (CE): A CE describes a category of actions that are expected not to have individually or cumulatively significant environmental impacts.
• Environmental Assessment (EA): When a CE is not appropriate and the agency has not determined whether the proposed action will cause significant environmental effects, then an EA is prepared. If, as a result of the EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is made, then the NEPA review process is completed with the FONSI, including documentation of its basis in the EA; otherwise an EIS is prepared.
• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): The most intensive level of analysis is the EIS, which is typically reserved for the analysis of proposed actions that are expected to result in significant environmental impacts. When an EIS is prepared, the NEPA review process is concluded when a record of decision (ROD) is issued.
CEQ has been working with agencies to modernize and reinvigorate NEPA implementation in several ways. CEQ issued guidance on the development and use of Categorical Exclusions in November 2010.
In August 2011 the President called for further steps to enhance the efficient and effective permitting and environmental review of infrastructure development “through such strategies as integrating planning and environmental reviews; coordinating multi-agency or multi-governmental reviews and approvals to run concurrently; setting clear schedules for completing steps in the environmental review and permitting process; and utilizing information technologies to inform the public about the progress of environmental reviews as well as the progress of Federal permitting and review processes.”
Agencies are encouraged to concentrate on relevant environmental analysis in their EAs and EISs, not to produce an encyclopedia of all applicable information.
All NEPA environmental documents, not just EISs, shall be written in plain language,
In light of the growth of environmental requirements since the publication of the CEQ Regulations, and the desire to use the EIS to address, via integration, those requirements, it is recognized that there will be a range of appropriate lengths of EISs. Nevertheless, agencies should keep EISs as concise as possible (continuing to relegate to appendices the relevant studies and technical analyses used to support the determinations and conclusions reached in the EIS) and no longer than necessary to comply with NEPA and the other legal and regulatory requirements being addressed in the EIS, and to provide decision makers and the public with the information they need to assess the significant environmental effects of the action under review. Length should vary with the number, complexity and significance of potential environmental problems.
Similarly, the CEQ guidance issued in 1981 indicated that 10-15 pages is generally appropriate for EAs.
An agency should first consider integrating the NEPA process into planning when it structures its internal process for developing a proposed policy, program, management plan, or project. Agencies must integrate the NEPA process into their planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, avoid delays later in the process, and anticipate and
The CEQ Regulations emphasize early NEPA planning in the context of an EIS. The scoping process can be used before an agency issues a notice of intent to seek useful information on a proposal from agencies and the public.
To prepare efficient EAs, agencies should adhere to these same principles and ensure that the EA is prepared in conjunction with the development of the proposed action in time to inform the public and the decisionmaker. Agencies should review their NEPA implementing procedures as well as their NEPA practices to ensure that NEPA is integrated into overall project planning and management to the fullest extent possible.
The CEQ Regulations call upon agencies to provide for situations where the initial planning process is in the hands of an applicant or other non-Federal entity.
Advanced planning prior to Federal involvement in an action must also ensure that the Federal agency is able to initiate early consultation with appropriate Tribes, States, local agencies, and interested private persons and organizations when Federal involvement is reasonably foreseeable.
To effectuate integrated decision making, avoid duplication, and focus the NEPA review, the CEQ Regulations provide for “scoping.”
The CEQ Regulations explicitly address the role of scoping in preparation of an EIS. Agencies can also choose to take advantage of scoping whenever preparing an EA. Scoping can be particularly useful when an EA deals with uncertainty or controversy regarding potential conflicts over the use of resources or the environmental effects of the proposed action, or where mitigation measures are likely to play a large role in determining whether the impacts will be reduced to a level where a Finding of No Significant Impact can be made. A lead agency preparing an EA may use scoping to identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review.
The scoping process can be particularly helpful in identifying opportunities to coordinate reviews and related surveys and studies required by other laws or by executive orders. Scoping can also be used to begin inter- and intra-governmental coordination if it is not already ongoing. To accomplish these goals, the lead agency preparing an EA or an EIS can choose to invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and “other interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with the action on environmental grounds).”
In sum, the scoping process provides an early opportunity to plan collaboration with other governments,
CEQ encourages Federal agencies to collaborate with Tribal, State, and local governments to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication, unless the agencies are specifically barred from doing so by some other law.
Where State law or local ordinances contain environmental impact analysis and documentation requirements in addition to, but not in conflict with, those in NEPA, the CEQ Regulations provide authority for producing joint EISs.
The CEQ Regulations also require that a Federal agency preparing an EIS better integrate the EIS into non-Federal planning processes by discussing and explaining any inconsistency of a proposed Federal action with any approved State or local plans and laws.
Agencies must integrate, to the fullest extent possible, their draft EIS with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by other statutes or Executive Orders.
The goal should be to conduct concurrent rather than sequential processes whenever appropriate. In situations where one aspect of a project is within the particular expertise or jurisdiction of another agency an agency should consider whether adoption or incorporation by reference of materials prepared by the other agency would be more efficient.
A coordinated or concurrent process may provide a better basis for informed decision making, or at least achieve the same result as separate or consecutive processes more quickly and with less potential for unnecessary duplication of effort. In addition to integrating the reviews and analyses, the CEQ Regulations allow an environmental document that complies with NEPA to
The adoption of one Federal agency's EIS, or a portion of that EIS, by another Federal agency is an efficiency that the CEQ Regulations provide.
The CEQ Regulations require agencies to involve agencies, applicants, and the public when preparing an EA; however, they do not require agencies to do so by preparing a draft or final EA for public review or comment.
If the actions covered by the original EIS and the proposed action are substantially the same, the agency adopting the EIS is not required to recirculate the EIS as a draft for public review and comment. The same is true for the adoption of another agency's EA when the original and proposed actions are substantially the same. In addition, in cases where the adopting agency is also a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, it may adopt the lead agency's EIS without recirculating the EIS as a draft or as a final EIS when, after an independent review, it concludes that the lead agency has adequately addressed the adopting agency's comments and suggestions.
Incorporation by reference is another method that provides efficiency and timesaving when preparing either an EA or an EIS. The CEQ Regulations direct agencies to incorporate by reference material into an EIS to reduce the size of the EIS and avoid duplicative effort.
Agencies should provide a reasonable and proportionate response to comments on a draft EIS by focusing on the environmental issues and information conveyed by the comments. When preparing a final EIS, if the draft EIS complies with NEPA, CEQ regulations, and agency implementing procedures, the agency may use the draft EIS as the final EIS under certain conditions. If changes in response to comments are minor and are limited to factual corrections and/or explanations of why the comments do not warrant further agency response, agencies may write them on errata sheets and attach them to the statement instead of rewriting the draft statement.
Similarly, if an agency issues an EA for comment and the changes in response to comments are minor and limited to factual corrections and/or explanations of why the comments do not warrant further agency response, then the agency may prepare a similar cover and errata sheet and use its draft EA as the final EA. When circulating draft EAs or EISs for public review and comment, we recommend agencies facilitate public review and comment by also publishing the EISs and EAs, and subsequently the comments received, on agency Web sites.
Establishing appropriate and predictable time limits promotes the efficiency of the NEPA process.
The CEQ Regulations refer to the EIS process when describing the “constituent parts of the NEPA process” to which time limits may apply, require agencies to set time limits at the request
This guidance highlights for agencies preparing either an EA or an EIS the ability to employ all the methods provided in the CEQ regulations to prepare concise and timely NEPA reviews. Using methods such as integrating planning and environmental reviews and permitting, coordinating multi-agency or multi-governmental reviews and approvals, and setting schedules for completing the environmental review will assist agencies in preparing efficient and timely EAs and EISs consistent with legal precedent and agency NEPA experience and practice.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to require higher-level approval for commercial item determinations for acquisitions exceeding $1 million when the determination is based on “of a type” or “offered for sale” language contained in the definition of commercial item. The rule also clarifies approval requirements for determinations for acquisitions of services exceeding $1 million using part 12 procedures but which do not meet the definition of commercial item.
March 12, 2012.
Mr. Dustin Pitsch, telephone 703-602-0289.
DoD is revising the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a recommendation made by the Panel on Contracting Integrity and included in its 2009 Report to Congress concerning compliance with the DFARS documentation requirements for commercial item determinations. The Panel on Contracting Integrity working group concluded, after reviewing a sampling of commercial contract awards, that contracting officer determinations are not always sufficiently documented in accordance with DFARS 212.102.
DoD is issuing a final rule because this rule does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD and does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This rule addresses DoD's internal approval process for contracting officer determinations made pursuant to DFARS part 12 for actions in excess of $1 million.
The DFARS changes are as follows:
• DFARS 212.102(a)(i) is revised to add “except for acquisitions made pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12.102(f)(1).” This language clarifies that no additional contracting officer determination is required for acquisitions made pursuant to FAR 12.102(f)(1).
• DFARS 212.102(a)(i)(A) is revised to add “or meets the criteria at FAR 12.102(g)(1).” This language addresses the inconsistency between the existing DFARS language at 212.102(a)(i)(A) that all FAR part 12 acquisitions exceeding $1 million must meet the commercial item definition, and the exception at FAR 12.102(g)(1) that allows for the use of part 12 procedures for services that do not meet the definition of commercial item in FAR 2.101, as long as it meets specific criteria listed in FAR 12.102(g)(1). The change clarifies that the contracting officer must determine that an acquisition exceeding $1 million and using part 12 procedures either meets the commercial item definition in part FAR 2.101 or the criteria set out at FAR 12.102(g)(1).
• Adds DFARS 212.102(a)(i)(C) to require approval at one level above the contracting officer when the commercial item determination relies on subsections (1)(ii), (3), (4), or (6) of the “commercial item” definition at FAR 2.101. The higher-level approval is required for commercial item determinations for actions that exceed $1 million that are based on “of a type” commercial procurements or items “offered for sale” but not yet sold to the general public.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision as defined within the meaning at FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for comment.
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 212 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a)(i) When using FAR part 12 procedures for acquisitions exceeding $1 million in value, except for acquisitions made pursuant to FAR 12.102(f)(1), the contracting officer shall—
(A) Determine in writing that the acquisition meets the commercial item definition in FAR 2.101 or meets the criteria at FAR 12.102(g)(1);
(B) Include the written determination in the contract file; and
(C) Obtain approval at one level above the contracting officer when a commercial item determination relies on subsections (1)(ii), (3), (4), or (6) of the “commercial item” definition at FAR 2.101.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2012 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. By this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas and announces the revised commercial quota for each state involved.
Effective March 7, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
Carly Bari, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9224.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.100.
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which was published on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) to evaluate requests for quota transfers or combinations.
North Carolina has agreed to transfer 879,118 lb (398,761 kg) of its 2012 commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by summer flounder landings of a number of North Carolina vessels that were granted safe harbor in Virginia due to hazardous shoaling in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, between January 1, 2012, and January 31, 2012, thereby requiring a quota transfer to account for an increase in Virginia's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2012 are: North Carolina, 2,614,661 lb (1,185,990 kg); and Virginia, 3,592,683 lb (1,629,614 kg).
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Energy (DOE) today publishes a proposed rule to implement section 142 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and directed the Secretary of Energy to issue implementing regulations for a statutorily-required reduction in petroleum consumption and increase in alternative fuel consumption for Federal fleets.
Public comment on this proposed rule will be accepted until April 11, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1904-AB98, by any of the following methods:
1.
2. Email to
3.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.
This notice of proposed rulemaking and any comments that DOE receives will be made available on the Federal Energy Management Program's Federal Fleet Management Web site at
Cyrus Nasseri, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program (EE-2L), 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121;
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, Pub. L. 110-140) was signed into law on December 19, 2007. Section 142 of EISA modified Part J of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, Pub. L. 94-163) by adding a new section 400FF entitled “Federal Fleet Conservation Requirements.” Section 400FF establishes mandatory reductions in annual petroleum consumption and mandatory increases in annual alternative fuel consumption for Federal fleets and directs the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to issue implementing regulations. The purpose of this notice is to present the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed regulations pursuant to this statutory directive.
New section 400FF(a)(1) provides that the Secretary shall issue regulations for Federal fleets subject to the alternative fueled vehicle (AFV) acquisition requirements of section 400AA of EPCA to require that, beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2010, Federal fleets “shall reduce petroleum consumption and increase alternative fuel consumption each year by an amount necessary to meet the goals described in paragraph (2).” Section 400FF(a)(2) provides, pursuant to paragraph (1), not later than October 1, 2015, and for each year thereafter, Federal fleets “shall achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in annual petroleum consumption and a 10 percent increase in annual alternative fuel consumption, as calculated from the baseline established by the Secretary for [FY] 2005.” Section 400FF(a)(3) requires the regulations to include “interim numeric milestones” to assess annual progress towards accomplishing the goals described in section 400FF(a)(2) and an annual Federal fleet reporting requirement “on progress towards meeting each of the milestones and the 2015 goals.” Section 400FF(b) sets forth requirements for the development and implementation of Federal fleet plans “to meet the required petroleum reduction levels and the alternative fuel consumption increases, including the milestones specified by the Secretary.”
Section 142 of EISA addresses similar matters as the fleet provisions in Executive Order (E.O.) 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” 72 FR 3919 (Jan. 26, 2007), and E.O. 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,” 74 FR 52117 (Oct. 8, 2009). However, there are notable differences between both Executive Orders and EISA section 142. Section 2(g) of E.O. 13423 provides, in part, that if a fleet consists of at least 20 motor vehicles, the fleet must reduce its “total consumption of petroleum products by 2 percent annually through the end of [FY] 2015,” relative to a baseline of FY 2005. Section 2(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13514 extends the petroleum reduction requirements set forth in E.O. 13423 through the end of FY 2020. Section 2(g) of E.O. 13423 also provides, in part, that if a fleet consists of at least 20 motor vehicles, the fleet must increase “the total fuel consumption that is non-petroleum-based by 10 percent annually”
The language set forth in E.O. 13423 and E.O. 13514 regarding requirements
On May 24, 2011, the President issued a memorandum to provide guidance to Federal agencies to help achieve the Administration's Federal fleet performance goals and to ensure that agencies are in compliance with Executive Order 13514.
Today's proposed rule would establish regulations implementing the requirements for Federal fleet reductions in petroleum and increases in alternative fuel. In addition to section 2(g) of E.O. 13423, section 2(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13514, and the May 2011 Presidential Memorandum, fleets also would be subject to section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486), as amended by section 141 of EISA, section 400AA(a) of EPCA, as amended by section 701 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), and sections 246 and 526 of EISA, which impose certain requirements related to Federal fleet vehicle emissions, Federal fleet fueling centers, the procurement and acquisition of AFVs, and the use of alternative fuels by dual fueled vehicles.
As specified in section 400FF of EPCA, today's proposed rule would apply to those “Federal fleets subject to section 400AA” of EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6374e(a). However, neither section 400AA nor section 400FF of EPCA contains a definition of the term “Federal fleet.” Accordingly, DOE proposes to define the term “Federal fleet” to reconcile the applicability of the requirements of section 400AA of EPCA, E.O. 13423, E.O. 13514, and the May 2011 Presidential Memorandum.
Both E.O. 13423 and E.O. 13514 establish requirements for agency fleets, defining the term “agency” to mean “an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, excluding the Government Accountability Office.” 72 FR at 3922; 74 FR at 52125. The May 2011 Presidential Memorandum also defines the term “agency” consistent with both Executive Orders. Moreover, both E.O. 13423 and E.O. 13514 apply to agencies operating fleets “of at least 20 motor vehicles.” 72 FR at 3919; 74 FR at 52118. Section 400AA of EPCA establishes AFV acquisition requirements for “vehicles acquired annually for use by the Federal Government.” 42 U.S.C. 6374(a)(1). The AFV acquisition requirements under section 400AA of EPCA apply both to vehicles acquired by “agencies” and to certain vehicles acquired by the U.S. Postal Service.
Upon consideration of the requirements of section 400AA of EPCA, E.O. 13423, E.O. 13514, and the May 2011 Presidential Memorandum, DOE proposes to define the term “Federal fleet” to mean 20 or more Federally-operated motor vehicles operated within the United States. The term “Federally-operated” would include motor vehicles that are operated by an “Executive agency” as that term is defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code; however, for consistency with the requirements of 400AA of EPCA, E.O. 13423, E.O. 13514, and the May 2011 Presidential Memorandum, the term “Federally-operated” would exclude the Government Accountability Office and would include the U.S. Postal Service. DOE further proposes that the term “Federal fleet” would include Federally-operated motor vehicles and motor vehicles operated by contractors or sub-contractors to the Federal Government. However, the term “Federal fleet” would not include those motor vehicles defined under proposed 10 CFR 438.2(j) as “exempt vehicles” and certain motor vehicles that are both contractor- or sub-contractor-owned and operating under Federal contract.
Under the proposed rule, a determination of annual petroleum and alternative fuel consumption levels would be required for all Federal fleet motor vehicles. The term “alternative fuel consumption,” as defined in proposed 10 CFR 438.2(d), also would include the alternative fuel used in exempt vehicles as well as the alternative fuel used in low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs)
The inclusion in the definition of the term “alternative fuel consumption” of alternative fuel used in LSEVs and exempt vehicles is consistent with the existing approach under E.O. 13423, and DOE believes such a definition would provide a strong incentive for Federal fleets to use alternative fuel to the maximum extent possible. Similarly, including in this definition the alternative fuel used in LSEVs would encourage the replacement of petroleum with alternative fuel. Under the proposed definition of “petroleum consumption” in 10 CFR 438.2(v), though, petroleum used in exempt vehicles and LSEVs would not be included as part of a Federal fleet's “petroleum consumption.” Once again,
Under proposed 10 CFR 438.1(j)(2), law enforcement motor vehicles would be exempt from the proposed requirements on Federal fleets. Proposed 10 CFR 438.1(o) defines the term “law enforcement motor vehicle” as “any motor vehicle that engages in, or is equipped to engage in, protective, high-speed, or law enforcement activities.” However, in accordance with the May 2011 Presidential Memorandum on Federal fleet performance, GSA has been directed to issue guidance on the applicability and implementation of AFV requirements on law enforcement vehicles. DOE will consider all future GSA guidance in development and preparation of the final rule.
While certain vehicles would be exempt from inclusion as part of a Federal fleet, it is important to recognize that the statutory requirements would not apply to individual vehicles. Instead, the petroleum reduction and alternative fuel use requirements are fleet-level requirements.
Under proposed 10 CFR 438.1(b), Federal motor vehicles not subject to Part 438 because they do not meet the definition of the term “Federal fleet” under proposed 10 CFR 438.2(l) nevertheless would be encouraged to comply voluntarily with the regulations.
Pursuant to Table III.1
Consistent with section 142 of EISA, beginning in FY 2010, each Federal fleet would be required to achieve a reduction in its annual petroleum consumption by an amount necessary to meet the October 1, 2015, requirement of at least a 20 percent lower annual petroleum consumption as relative to its FY 2005 baseline level. For FYs 2010 through 2014, proposed 10 CFR 438.103(a) sets forth non-mandatory interim milestones to assess Federal fleet progress in meeting the FY 2015 annual petroleum reduction requirements. Although these interim milestones are non-mandatory, the milestones are consistent with the petroleum reduction requirements set forth in E.O. 13514.
As required under section 142 of EISA and as set forth under proposed 10 CFR 438.101(a), Federal fleets must achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in annual petroleum consumption “not later than October 1, 2015, and for each year thereafter”; i.e., by October 1, 2015, each Federal fleet must achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in its annual petroleum consumption as calculated from the applicable FY 2005 baseline. That is, by the end of FY 2015 and for each year thereafter, annual Federal fleet petroleum consumption must be equal to or less than 80 percent of the amount that Federal fleet consumed in FY 2005. This interpretation is complementary of the requirement set forth in E.O. 13514 that each Federal fleet reduce its “total consumption of petroleum products by a minimum or 2 percent annually through the end of [FY] 2020, relative to a baseline of [FY] 2005.” Accordingly, compliance with E.O. 13514 would result in full compliance with the petroleum reduction requirements set forth in EISA.
As required under section 142 of EISA, beginning in FY 2010, each Federal fleet would be required to achieve an increase in its annual alternative fuel consumption by an amount necessary to meet the October 1,
As noted above, the language set forth in E.O. 13423 and E.O. 13514 regarding requirements for Federal fleet petroleum consumption reductions and alternative fuel consumption increases is not identical to the language contained in EISA section 142. EISA provides that each Federal fleet shall achieve at least “a 10 percent increase in annual alternative fuel consumption” whereas E.O. 13423 provides that each fleet must increase “the total fuel consumption that is non-petroleum-based by 10 percent annually.” The CEQ Instructions provide that the requirement in E.O. 13423 that fleets increase alternative fuel usage “by 10 percent annually” is “measured relative to the prior year's alternative fuel usage levels.” As required under section 142 of EISA and as set forth in proposed 10 CFR 438.101(b), however, each Federal fleet by October 1, 2015, would be required to achieve at least a 10 percent increase in its annual alternative fuel consumption as calculated from the applicable FY 2005 baseline. Therefore, by the end of FY 2015 and for each year thereafter, annual Federal fleet alternative fuel consumption would be required to be equal to or greater than 110 percent of the amount that Federal fleet consumed in FY 2005. Accordingly, consistent with the approach for calculating reductions in annual petroleum consumption under proposed 10 CFR 438.101(a), increases in annual Federal fleet alternative fuel consumption under proposed 10 CFR 438.101(b) would be calculated as measured relative to its FY 2005 baseline.
For purposes of the proposed rule, DOE believes that requiring increases in annual alternative fuel consumption levels potentially would lead to required levels of alternative fuel consumption that far exceed the current total of fuel use without regard to actual demand levels. Therefore, DOE proposes that “not later than October 1, 2015, and for each year thereafter,” each Federal fleet would be required to ensure that its annual alternative fuel consumption is at least 10 percent greater than its FY 2005 alternative fuel consumption level. DOE notes that the EISA section 142 alternative fuel consumption requirement and the proposed non-mandatory interim milestones are not as stringent as the annual alternative fuel usage requirements set forth in E.O. 13423; however, compliance with E.O. 13423 would result in full compliance with the alternative fuel requirements set forth in EISA.
EISA section 142 requires that DOE establish interim numeric milestones to assess annual progress towards accomplishing Federal fleet requirements for petroleum reduction and alternative fuel use. EISA further requires the submission of annual Federal fleet reports in order to measure progress towards meeting each of the milestones and the FY 2015 requirements.
Under proposed 10 CFR 438.101, not later than October 1, 2015, the annual petroleum consumption for each Federal fleet must be equal to or less than 80 percent of the Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level, and the annual alternative fuel consumption for each Federal fleet must be equal to or greater than 110 percent of the Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level. As explained above, proposed 10 CFR 438.103(a) and (b) set forth non-mandatory interim milestones for each Federal fleet to reduce its annual petroleum consumption and to increase its annual alternative fuel consumption between FYs 2010 and 2014.
Progress towards meeting these interim milestones would be required to be reported annually pursuant to proposed 10 CFR 438.104. Under this section, DOE would require submission of annual reports to DOE containing information on the petroleum and alternative fuel used in Federal fleet motor vehicles. This report also would include the alternative fuel used in exempt vehicles and LSEVs. All reports under this section would be required to be submitted through the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool Web-based reporting system (FAST) (
Consistent with section 142 of EISA, proposed 10 CFR 438.201 requires the development and submission of a written plan, including implementation dates, to meet the required Federal fleet petroleum reduction and alternative fuel increase levels under the proposed rule. This written plan would contain similar information as the fleet management plan that agencies are directed to submit to GSA under the May 2011 Presidential Memorandum. Accordingly, DOE has attempted to identify areas in which compliance with the proposed requirements under 10 CFR 438.201 also would be useful in satisfying the requirements of the Presidential Memorandum. Under proposed 10 CFR 438.201, the written plan would be required to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Each written plan would require senior management approval, clearly assign responsibility for implementation, put forth assumptions made in developing projections, and address resource requirements necessary for success.
EISA section 142 directs the Secretary to establish FY 2005 Federal fleet petroleum consumption and alternative fuel consumption baseline values. As discussed above, beginning on October 1, 2015, the annual petroleum consumption for each Federal fleet would be equal to or less than 80 percent of that Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level, and the annual alternative fuel consumption for each Federal fleet would be equal to or greater than 110 percent of that Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level. In the event that a Federal fleet was not in existence in FY 2005, DOE would take steps to establish reasonable baselines and would prorate the requirements based on the date that the Federal fleet was established.
DOE initially has determined under the proposed rule that the petroleum consumption and alternative fuel consumption baseline values should be those reported for Federal fleets through FAST for FY 2005. DOE would encourage that this information be reviewed and, if it is found that any value is incorrect, contact DOE to request a correction. For example, a correction might be requested in the event that the Federal fleet's alternative fuel use value for FY 2005 submitted through FAST did not include the electricity used in the Federal fleet's LSEVs.
Federal fleets with extremely low alternative fuel use would be subject to a proposed minimum alternative fuel baseline. The minimum baseline would be the greater of (1) the amount of alternative fuel consumed by that Federal fleet in FY 2005, expressed in GGEs, as reflected in FY 2005 FAST data, or (2) the lesser of (a) five percent of total Federal fleet vehicle fuel (petroleum and alternative fuel) consumption and (b) 500,000 GGEs. For example, if a Federal fleet reported using 1,400,000 gallons of petroleum and 600,000 GGEs of alternative fuel in its FY 2005 FAST data, that Federal fleet's FY 2005 alternative fuel baseline level would be 600,000 GGEs, as 600,000 GGEs is the greater of (1) the amount of alternative fuel consumed by that Federal fleet in 2005 (600,000 GGEs) and (2) five percent of total vehicle consumption in FY 2005 (100,000 gallons, which is less than 500,000 GGEs). However, if a Federal fleet reported using 1,950,000 gallons of petroleum and 50,000 GGEs of alternative fuel in its FY 2005 FAST data, that Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level would be 100,000 GGEs, as 100,000 GGEs is the greater of (1) the amount of alternative fuel consumed by that Federal fleet in 2005 (50,000 GGEs) and (2) five percent of total vehicle consumption in FY 2005 (100,000 gallons, which is less than 500,000 GGEs).
Using only actual FY 2005 levels as the baseline would require limited (in volume) increases in alternative fuel for Federal fleets with low FY 2005 alternative fuel usage and large (in volume) increases in alternative fuel for Federal fleets with high FY 2005 alternative fuel usage, thereby requiring less alternative fuel use by those Federal fleets with historically low alternative fuel usage. This approach is being taken to encourage those Federal fleets that have not been aggressive in substituting alternative fuel for petroleum to begin doing so and to bring these Federal fleets up to levels similar to other Federal fleets.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this proceeding by submitting data, views, or arguments. Written comments should be submitted to the address, and in the form, indicated in the
If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you should submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. DOE is responsible for the final determination with regard to disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it accordingly under the DOE Freedom of Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.
Today's proposed rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
DOE has determined that this proposed rule is covered by the categorical exclusion (CX) found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations at paragraph A7 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. The categorical exclusion in paragraph A7 (CX A7) encompasses the “transfer, lease, disposition or acquisition of interests in personal property (
DOE has experience with determining that CX A7 encompasses changes to the composition of fleets that are not under DOE's control. For example, DOE determined that a grant to the Texas Railroad Commission for the installation of propane refueling infrastructure and vehicle purchases was categorically excluded from further NEPA review under CX A7.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the RFA and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. The proposed rule would apply only to Federal agencies, which are not small entities under the RFA. For this reason, DOE certifies that this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This rulemaking does not include any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
DOE reviewed this regulatory action under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4), which requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For proposed regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures 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 assessing the resulting costs, benefits and other effects of the rule on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)). Section 204 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate” (2 U.S.C. 1534). Section 203 of UMRA requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments that may be affected before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments (2 U.S.C. 1533). On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at:
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 proposed rule that may affect family well being. This proposed 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.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this proposed rule and initially has determined that it would not preempt State law and 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. Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
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 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (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 the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine either that those standards 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.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), provides for 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 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule 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 OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, 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 proposed significant energy action, the agency must give 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.
As discussed in Part V.A above, this proposed rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Today's action, however, is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Nor has this action been designated by OIRA as a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Energy, Energy conservation, Fuel, Motor vehicles, Petroleum, and Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy is proposing to amend title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new Part 438 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6374e; 42 U.S.C. 7101
(a) The provisions of this part implement section 142 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140).
(b) This part applies to each Federal fleet, as that term is defined in section 438.2(l). Federal motor vehicles not subject to this part because they do not meet the definition of the term “Federal fleet” under 438.2(l) are encouraged to comply voluntarily with the requirements of this part.
The following definitions apply to this part:
(a) “
(b) “
(c) “
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
(1) a motor vehicle that operates solely on alternative fuel; or
(2) a low-speed electric vehicle.
(g) “
(h) “
(i) “
(j) “
(1) A motor vehicle used for motor vehicle manufacturer product evaluations or tests;
(2) A law enforcement motor vehicle;
(3) An emergency motor vehicle;
(4) A military tactical vehicle;
(5) A motor vehicle owned and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency;
(6) A motor vehicle that is not licensed for use on roads and highways; or
(7) A Federally-owned motor vehicle that is operated solely by an Indian nation or a State-run Fish and Wildlife service.
(k) “
(l) “
(1) Exempt vehicles as defined in section 438.2(j);
(2) Motor vehicles owned by a contractor or sub-contractor that qualifies as a small business under 13 CFR part 121;
(3) Motor vehicles owned by a contractor or sub-contractor when the
(4) Motor vehicles owned by a contractor or sub-contractor when a central purpose of the relevant contract is neither the provision of motor vehicles nor the provision of transportation services for people or materials on site.
(m) “
(n) “
(o) “
(p) “
(q) “
(r) “
(1) Has a top attainable speed in 1 mile of more than 20 mph and not more than 25 mph on a paved level surface; and
(2) Is propelled by an electric motor and an on-board, rechargeable energy storage system that is rechargeable using an off-board source of electricity.
(s) “
(t) “
(u) “
(v) “
(w) “
This subpart sets forth requirements and interim milestones for reductions in Federal fleet petroleum consumption and increases in Federal fleet alternative fuel consumption.
Not later than October 1, 2015, and for each year thereafter:
(a) The annual petroleum consumption of each Federal fleet must be equal to or less than 80 percent of that Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level, as determined in accordance with section 438.102(a); and
(b) The annual alternative fuel consumption of each Federal fleet plus the annual alternative fuel consumption by each low-speed electric vehicle and exempt vehicle must be equal to or greater than 110 percent of the Federal fleet's FY 2005 baseline level, as determined in accordance with section 438.102(b).
In the event that a Federal fleet was not in existence in FY 2005, DOE will prorate the requirements set forth in this section based on the date that the Federal fleet was established.
The applicable FY 2005 baseline under section 438.101 for each Federal fleet is:
(a) With respect to annual petroleum consumption, the amount of petroleum consumed by that Federal fleet in FY 2005 expressed in gasoline gallon equivalents, as reflected in the FAST data submitted to DOE for that Federal fleet for FY 2005; and
(b) With respect to annual alternative fuel consumption, the greater of:
(1) The amount of alternative fuel consumed by that Federal fleet in FY 2005 expressed in gasoline gallon equivalents, as reflected in the FAST data submitted to DOE for that Federal fleet for FY 2005, or
(2) The lesser of:
a. Five percent of the Federal fleet's total vehicle fuel (petroleum plus alternative fuel) consumption in FY 2005, and
b. 500,000 gasoline gallon equivalents.
In the event that a Federal fleet was not in existence in FY 2005, DOE will establish reasonable baselines for that Federal fleet.
The following non-mandatory interim milestones are to be used by each Federal fleet to assess its annual progress towards meeting the consumption requirements in section 438.101, as calculated from the applicable FY 2005 baseline:
(a) Petroleum consumption
(1) By September 30, 2010—10 percent reduction;
(2) By September 30, 2011—12 percent reduction;
(3) By September 30, 2012—14 percent reduction;
(4) By September 30, 2013—16 percent reduction; and
(5) By September 30, 2014—18 percent reduction.
(b) Alternative fuel consumption
(1) By September 30, 2010—5 percent increase;
(2) By September 30, 2011—6 percent increase;
(3) By September 30, 2012—7 percent increase;
(4) By September 30, 2013—8 percent increase; and
(5) By September 30, 2014—9 percent increase.
Beginning in FY 2010, the status of each Federal fleet must be reported annually in order to measure Federal fleet progress towards meeting the interim milestones set forth in section 438.103 and the consumption requirements set forth in section 438.101. Reports under this section must be submitted to DOE through the FAST system no later than December 15 of each calendar year. Each report must include the petroleum and alternative fuel used in all Federal fleet motor vehicles. Each report also must include the alternative fuel used in exempt vehicles and the alternative fuel used in low-speed electric vehicles.
This subpart sets forth provisions concerning Federal fleet plans for meeting the petroleum consumption reductions and alternative fuel consumption increases set forth in subpart B.
No later than December 31, 2012, a written plan must be submitted to DOE that specifies each Federal fleet's strategy for meeting the consumption requirements set forth in section 438.101, including the interim milestones provided in section 438.103. Plans must be sent to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program (EE-2L), 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or such other address as DOE may provide by notice in the
The written plan must:
(a) Identify the specific measures that the Federal fleet will rely upon to meet the consumption requirements and interim milestones, such as plans for right-sizing the Federal fleet and strategies for reducing vehicle miles traveled;
(b) Quantify (in percentage and in gasoline gallon equivalents), for each measure set forth in the plan, the reduction in petroleum consumption, and the increase in alternative fuel consumption projected to be achieved by the measure in each FY;
(c) Specify the date by which each measure set forth in the plan will be implemented;
(d) Quantify the composition of the Federal fleet by vehicle class and fuel type, ensuring that it is correctly sized to support mission requirements in each FY;
(e) Specify actions to ensure that alternative fueled vehicles are acquired and located where the appropriate alternative fuel is available; and
(f) Quantify (in percentage) the use of alternative fuel by alternative fueled vehicles and low-speed electric vehicles in each FY.
Whenever an annual report under section 438.104 indicates that the Federal fleet failed to meet an interim milestone under section 438.103, the plan previously developed and submitted under this subpart must be revised and resubmitted to the DOE Federal Energy Management Program within 180 days of submission of the annual report.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to expand coverage on contractor requirements and responsibilities relating to alleged crimes by or against contractor personnel.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012-D006, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Meredith Murphy, telephone 571-372-6098.
DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS clause at 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, to expand coverage on contractor requirements and responsibilities regarding alleged crimes by or against contractor personnel. The expanded coverage is proposed to apply to contingency operations, humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, or other military operations when the latter are designated by the combatant commander. These requirements currently apply only to DoD contracts performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Expanding the coverage worldwide will provide contractors the guidance they need to take actions if such alleged offenses occur.
Currently, the clause at 252.225-7040 is prescribed at 225.7402-5(a). The clause prescription requires insertion of the clause in solicitations and contracts that authorize contractor personnel to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States in (1) contingency operations; (2) humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or (3) other military operations or military exercises, when designated by the combatant commander. The expanded DFARS clause will require the contractor to provide information to contractor personnel who perform work on a contract in those countries about how and where to report an alleged crime and, for contractor personnel seeking whistleblower protection, where to seek assistance. The crimes referred to are alleged offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 47) or the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (18 U.S.C. 212). The clause also provides a list of the appropriate investigative authorities to which suspected offenses can be reported,
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The two key requirements being proposed are for the contractor to (a) report any alleged offenses against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to appropriate investigative authorities and (b) give contractor personnel who work in covered areas information on how and where to report an alleged UCMJ or MEJA offense. The clause also would provide contact information for the three Service Criminal Investigative Agencies and the DoD Inspector General.
In FY 2010, DoD awarded 788 contracts for performance in Iraq and 1,051 contracts for performance in Afghanistan. Twenty percent of these contracts were awarded to small businesses. As DoD exits the areas of current contingency operations,
There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements associated with the proposed rule. The rule will apply equally to all contractors, large and small, performing in deployed areas. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. The points of contact for reporting criminal acts and/or seeking whistleblower protection are listed in the clause. Contractor compliance requirements have been limited to passing this clear, available information to their personnel. No alternatives to the rule have been identified that could accomplish the objectives of the rule or minimize further its economic impact on small entities.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012-D006), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
2. Section 252.225-7040 is amended by removing the clause date “(JUN 2011)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d)
(1) The Contractor shall comply with, and shall ensure that its personnel authorized to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause are familiar with and comply with, all applicable—
(i) United States, host country, and third country national laws;
(ii) Provisions of the law of war, as well as any other applicable treaties and international agreements;
(iii) United States regulations, directives, instructions, policies, and procedures; and
(iv) Orders, directives, and instructions issued by the Combatant Commander, including those relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or relations and interaction with local nationals.
(2) The Contractor shall institute and implement an effective program to prevent violations of the law of war by its employees and subcontractors, including law of war training in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this clause.
(3) The Contractor shall ensure that contractor employees accompanying U.S. Armed Forces are aware—
(i) Of the DoD definition of “sexual assault” in DoDD 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program;
(ii) That the offenses addressed by the definition are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this clause); and
(iii) That other sexual misconduct may constitute offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Federal law, such as the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or host nation laws, and that the offenses not covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice may nevertheless have consequences to the contractor employees (see paragraph (h)(1) of this clause).
(4) The Contractor shall report to the appropriate investigative authorities, identified in paragraph (d)(6) of this clause, any alleged offenses under—
(i) The Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 47) (applicable to contractors serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field during a declared war or contingency operation); or
(ii) The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (18 U.S.C. 212).
(5) The Contractor shall provide to all contractor personnel who will perform work on a contract in the deployed area, before beginning such work, information on the following:
(i) How and where to report an alleged offense described in paragraph (d)(4) of this clause.
(ii) Where to seek victim and witness protection and assistance available to
(6) The appropriate investigative authorities to which suspected crimes shall be reported include the following officials:
(i) U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Division at
(ii) Air Force Office of Special Investigations at
(iii) Navy Criminal Investigative Service at
(iv) Any command of any supported military element or the command of any base.
(7) Personnel seeking whistleblower protection from reprisals for reporting criminal acts shall seek guidance through the DoD Inspector General hotline at 800-424-9098 or
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize and expand FTZ 77 under the alternative site framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project, to a five-year ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 4 if not activated by February 28, 2017, and to a three-year ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would terminate authority for Sites 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 if no foreign-status merchandise is admitted for a
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 3, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results in the 2009-2010 antidumping duty administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (“PET film”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Thomas Martin and Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936, and (202) 482-3518, respectively.
On November 3, 2011, the Department published its
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, “Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's
The POR is November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metalized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made certain changes in the margin calculation. For the final results, the Department has made the following changes:
• We revised the calculated surrogate overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit applicable to Respondents using information from the financial statements of JBF Industries Limited, a manufacturer in India of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.
• We revised the surrogate valuation of PET scrap sold, applying Indian HTS subheading 3907.60.
We determine the weighted-average dumping margins for the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, to be:
Pursuant
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 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Wanhua, Dongfang, Fuwei Films and Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd. (“Green Packing”), the cash deposit rate will be the rate identified in the Final Results Margin section, as listed above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate of 76.72 percent;
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 orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or
We intend to 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.
Issue 1: Whether the Department should have selected India or Thailand as the Surrogate Country.
Issue 2: Whether the Department should have selected the financial statement of JBF Industries Ltd. to calculate financial ratios.
Issue 3: Whether the Department should have rejected financial statements submitted in its surrogate value rebuttal comments.
Issue 4: Whether the Department should have selected the six-digit subheading 3907.60 to value the Respondents' PET chips.
Issue 5: Whether the Department should require company certifications for surrogate value submissions.
Issue 6: Whether the Department should have selected HTS 3915.10 to value Respondents' scrap offset.
Issue 7: Whether the Department improperly failed to select Fuwei Films and Green Packing as mandatory respondents, and improperly failed to consider the voluntary responses of Fuwei Films and Green Packing.
Issue 8: Whether the separate rate assigned to Fuwei Films and Green Packing in the
Issue 9: Whether the Department should re-calculate the consumption of raw material inputs for Wanhua and Dongfang with respect to reclaimed PET chips.
Issue 10: Whether the Department should have calculated the consumption of material inputs of Wanhua based on an application of adverse facts available.
Issue 11: Whether the Department should have adjusted Dongfang's reported electricity and water FOPs.
Issue 12: Whether the Department should engage in the practice of zeroing.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the 2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
We invited interested parties to comment on our
Raquel Silva or Wendy Frankel, 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) 482-6475 and (202) 482-5849, respectively.
On October 7, 2011, the Department published its
Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan”), the petitioner; and TUTRIC each submitted publicly available information regarding surrogate values on October 27, 2011; Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively, “Bridgestone”), domestic interested parties, did so on October 28, 2011. On November 7, 2011, TUTRIC submitted rebuttal surrogate value information.
Titan and Bridgestone submitted their case briefs on November 17, and November 18, 2011, respectively. On November 30, 2011, TUTRIC submitted its rebuttal brief.
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, titled, “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2009-2010 Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order,” dated February 21, 2012 (“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. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at
The POR is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.
The products covered by the order are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but are not limited to: (1) agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural tractors,
Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed, manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association:
Prefix letter designations:
• P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;
• LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and
• ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.
Suffix letter designations:
• TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156″ or plus 0.250″;
• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;
• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15″ tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.
• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;
• LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service; and
• MC—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.
The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; tires of a kind designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications. Also excluded from the scope are radial and bias tires of a kind designed for use in mining and construction vehicles and equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).
In the
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the
Based on an analysis of the comments received, for the final results, the Department has made the following changes to TUTRIC's Margin Calculation:
•
•
•
•
•
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if,
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of partial AFA is appropriate for the final results with respect to TUTRIC's consumption of steam.
Pursuant to section 776(e)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, we find that TUTRIC failed to provide requested information, and failed to provide information in the form and manner requested by the Department by the established deadlines on three separate occasions. In the original questionnaire issued on January 19, 2011, the Department requested that TUTRIC provide a discussion of how the company calculated its reported energy (steam) usage, and to also provide supporting worksheets. In its March 11, 2011, response, TUTRIC attached a worksheet demonstrating its final allocation of steam consumption to production-related activities and non-production related activities. However, TUTRIC did not provide a narrative explanation to support its calculations methodology or the calculation details as requested.
On June 9, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting that TUTRIC specifically provide a detailed narrative explanation of its steam consumption calculation. In its July 15, 2011, response, TUTRIC attached a revised worksheet that
On August 16, 2011, in an additional supplemental questionnaire, the Department again specifically asked that TUTRIC provide a worksheet and a narrative explanation to demonstrate the calculation used to derive its allocation ratio. In a response dated September 2, 2011, TUTRIC referred the Department to its July 15, 2011, response. The Department notes that while the July 15, 2011, worksheet demonstrated TUTRIC's general allocation of factors of production (“FOP”), TUTRIC again did not provide the underlying calculation demonstrating how it derived the allocations or a narrative explanation.
Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department finds that TUTRIC failed to provide essential information to support its reported steam consumption. Specifically, it failed to provide a narrative explanation of its calculation methodology and failed to provide the actual calculations used in allocating steam consumption between production and non-production use as requested by the Department. Additionally, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department finds that TUTRIC additionally failed to provide clarifying information in the manner requested by the Department. Consequently, the Department finds it necessary to apply partial facts available, as the necessary information is not available to determine the propriety of TUTRIC's derived allocation for steam consumption. Additionally, because TUTRIC had multiple opportunities but never provided the requisite information, we find that TUTRIC failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information concerning TUTRIC's steam consumption. For that reason, we determine that the application of an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is warranted. Therefore, as partial AFA for these final results, the Department has applied TUTRIC's total consumption of the steam consumed during the POR as TUTRIC's production consumption quantity.
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2009, through August 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
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 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TUTRIC, the cash deposit rate will be the margin listed above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 210.48 percent determined in the less-than-fair-value investigation; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. 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.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the Final Results differ from the
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On September 7, 2011, the Department published the preliminary results of this administrative review.
In the
For purposes of the order, the product covered consists of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered by this review.
Furthermore, the order specifically covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. For purposes of the order, the term “unassembled” ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “complete” ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The term “incomplete” ironing table means product shipped or sold as a “bare board”—i.e., a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover—with or without additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by the order under the term “certain parts thereof” consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables.
Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded.
The subject ironing tables were previously classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS
Foshan Shunde requested a separate, company-specific antidumping duty rate. In the
All issues raised in the case briefs by the parties and to which we have responded are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,” (March 5, 2012) (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
Based on the comments received from interested parties, we have made the following changes from that presented in our
• We have calculated all Indonesian Factors of Production to the nearest unit rather than to the nearest million units.
We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist in these final results:
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for Foshan Shunde,
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for subject ironing tables from the PRC via
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Foshan Shunde the cash deposit rate will be 43.47 percent; (2) for previously-investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction or conversion to a judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
March 12, 2012.
Elfi Blum or Toni Page, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-1398, respectively.
On August 26, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review under the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India covering the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the order for which the administrative review was requested. However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the review within the aforementioned time limit, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit. The Department needs additional time to analyze the extensive sales and cost questionnaire responses that were submitted, and we must issue additional supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department has decided to extend the time limit for the preliminary results from 245 days to 365 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than July 30, 2012. Unless extended, the final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 6, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review for certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the
Christopher Hargett (Union and HYSCO), Cindy Robinson (Dongbu) and Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group and non-selected companies), Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4161, (202) 482-3797, and (202) 482-5075, respectively.
On September 6, 2011, the Department published the
On November 9, 2011, the Department extended the time limits for the final results of this review until no later than March 4, 2012.
We invited parties to comment on our
This order covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 17th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea (2009-2010),” from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce Building, room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
As a result of the Department's analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the calculations of company-specific weight-average margins.
For Union, we changed the date of sale for certain U.S. sales as noted in Comment 7 of our Issues and Decision Memorandum. In addition, we revised the payment date and credit expense for certain sales with missing payment dates as noted at Comment 8 of our Issues and Decision Memorandum.
On August 31, 2010, the POSCO Group requested revocation of the order on CORE from Korea as it pertains to its sales.
Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review. Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is set forth at 19 CFR 351.222. Under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), the Department may revoke an antidumping duty order in part if it concludes that (A) an exporter or producer has sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years, (B) the exporter or producer has agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value, and (C) the continued application of the antidumping duty order is no longer necessary to offset dumping.
A request for revocation of an order in part for a company previously found dumping must address three elements. The company requesting the revocation must do so in writing and submit the following statements with the request: (1) The company's certification that it sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value during the current review period and that, in the future, it will not sell at less than normal value; (2) the company's certification that, during each of the consecutive years forming the basis of the request, it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities; (3) the agreement to reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, the company has sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value.
With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show that the POSCO Group sold CORE at not less than normal value during the current review period.
Therefore, we find that the POSCO Group qualifies for revocation from the order on CORE from Korea pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and, thus, we will revoke the order with respect to CORE from Korea produced and exported to the United States by the POSCO Group. The revocation of the order in part with respect to merchandise produced and exported by the POSCO Group, is effective August 1, 2010.
We determine that the following weighted-average margins
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies examined in this review (
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed.
This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum:
Comment 1:
Comment 2:
Comment 3:
Comment 4:
Comment 5:
Comment 6:
Comment 7:
Comment 8:
Comment 9:
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 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 May 11, 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 Kate Swails, (978) 282-8481 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The purpose of this collection of information is to enable National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to reduce the serious injury and mortality of large whales, especially right whales, due to incidental entanglement in the United States (U.S.) commercial fishing gear. Any persons setting trap/pot of gillnet gear in some areas of the Atlantic Ocean are required to paint or otherwise mark their gear with one or two color codes, designating the type of gear and area where the gear is set. The surface buoys of this gear need to be marked to identify the vessel or fishery. These marking requirements apply in the various management areas under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), developed under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The goals of this collection of information are to obtain more information on where large whales are being entangled and on what type of gear is responsible for the entanglement. This information will allow NMFS to focus further risk reduction measures in certain areas or fisheries, where needed, to meet the goals of the ALWTRP. Also, fisheries observers can provide information to managers on whether regulations need to be modified to address compliance or safety issues.
Information collected is in the form of gear marking.
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Reopening of comment period.
This action reopens the comment period of a notice published on December 21, 2011. The original comment period on the notice closed at 5 p.m., E.S.T., March 1, 2012; however, the Council's Executive Committee voted to reopen the comment period an additional 60 days. This notice reopens the comment period to 5 p.m., E.S.T., April 30, 2012.
Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., E.S.T., on April 30, 2012.
Travis Ford, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9233.
NMFS published a NOI to prepare an EIS and announced public scoping meetings for the Council's Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispeces Fishery Management Plan on December 21, 2011 (76 FR 79153). The comment period for the subject document closed on March 1, 2012. The Council's Executive Committee voted to reopen the comment period an additional 60 days. The closing date for comments has been extended to 5 p.m., E.S.T., April 30, 2012.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS)/Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Calibration Workshop.
SEDAR and NOAA Fisheries Service will convene a workshop to consider calibration methods for the MRFSS and MRIP estimates of marine recreational fisheries harvest.
The workshop will be held March 27-29, 2012. See
The MRFSS/MRIP Calibration Workshop will be held at the Doubletree by Hilton Raleigh Brownstone—University, 1707 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC 27605; telephone: (800) 331-7919 or (919) 828-0811.
John Carmichael, Science and Statistics Program Manager, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366.
Changes in estimated recreational catch resulting from the revised estimation process developed through MRIP may have consequences to assessment and management of many fish stocks. Managers and scientists need to consider how revised marine recreational catch values will affect stock assessments and management actions, and how to best incorporate revised values into assessment and management systems. SEDAR and NOAA Fisheries are working cooperatively to address these recreational catch issues through the planned workshop. Workshop objectives are to review a range of studies that may provide insight for potential MRIP-MRFSS calibrations, develop possible calibration methods, and develop guidance for incorporating revised estimates into stock assessments.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Council office (4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; (843) 571-4366) at least 5 business days prior to the workshop.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; affirmative finding renewal.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant Administrator) has granted an affirmative finding 2-year renewal to the Government of Ecuador under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding renewal will allow yellowfin tuna harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) by Ecuadorian-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under Ecuadorian jurisdiction to be imported into the United States. The affirmative finding renewal was based on review of documentary evidence submitted by the Government of Ecuador and obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
The affirmative finding renewal is effective from April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2013 (retroactive).
Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone 562-980-4000; fax 562-980-4018.
The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361
The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the IDCP and obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request an affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. NMFS
An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the IDCP.
As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Government of Ecuador or obtained from the IATTC and has determined that Ecuador has met the requirements under the MMPA to receive a renewal of their affirmative finding.
After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued Ecuador's affirmative finding renewal, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by Ecuadorian-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under Ecuadorian jurisdiction through March 31, 2013.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of Intent to Renew; Correction.
This document corrects a reference in the text of the 30-day Notice of Intent to Renew an agency collection of information, Regulations Governing Bankruptcies of Commodity Brokers (OMB Control No. 3038-0021). The notice that is being corrected was published in the
Martin B. White, Office of the General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5129; Fax: (202) 418-5567; email:
In the Notice of Intent to Renew, beginning on page 13101 in the issue of March 5, 2012, make the following correction. On page 13101 in the middle column in the third paragraph under
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Notice of the retirement of one Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is providing notice that it is retiring one system of records notice, CFTC-7, Formal Employment Discrimination Complaint and Reasonable Accommodation Files, from its inventory of record systems because the relevant records are covered by existing government-wide system notices.
Effective upon publication.
Kathy Harman-Stokes, Chief Privacy Officer,
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission effort to review and update system of records notices, the Commission is retiring one system of records notice, CFTC-7, Formal Employment Discrimination Complaint and Reasonable Accommodation Files. The Commission is retiring the system notice because the records are covered by existing government-wide notices, EEOC/GOVT-1, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government Complaint and Appeal Records, and OPM/GOVT-10, Employee Medical File System Records.
The Commission will continue to collect and maintain records regarding discrimination and sexual harassment claims, complaints and related material and will rely upon and follow the existing Federal government-wide system of records notice titled EEOC/GOVT-1, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government Complaint and Appeal Records. The Commission also will continue to collect and maintain records regarding requests for work-related accommodations, and will rely upon and follow existing government-wide system of records notice entitled OPM/GOV-10, Employee Medical File System Records (71 FR 35360 June 19, 2006). Eliminating CFTC-7 will not have an adverse impact on individuals and will promote the overall streamlining and management of CFTC Privacy Act record systems.
Accordingly, this notice formally terminates system of records notice CFTC-7 and removes it from the inventory of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Council On Environmental Quality.
Notice of Availability, Draft Revised Guidance, “Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting”.
On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” (74 FR 52117), in order to establish an integrated strategy toward
On October 6, 2010, The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released Guidance on Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting that establishes Government-wide requirements for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with Federal agency operations.
On July 18, 2011, The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Department of Defense (DoD), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided recommendations for revision to the Federal GHG reporting and accounting procedures. CEQ provides this draft revision of the guidance for public review and comment to ensure accessibility of Federal accounting and reporting requirements and to enhance the quality of public involvement in governmental decisions relating to the environment.
Comments should be submitted on or before April 11, 2012. Comments received after that date may not be considered.
The Draft Revised Guidance, “Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting” document is available at
Keith Dennis, Senior Program Manager at (202) 456-5226.
The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality is required, under Section 5(a) of EO 13514, to issue guidance for greenhouse gas accounting and reporting.
Federal agencies are required, under Section 2(c) of EO 13514, to establish and report to the CEQ Chair and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director a comprehensive inventory of absolute GHG emissions, including scope 1, scope 2, and specified scope 3 emissions annually for each fiscal year, starting in 2010.
Section 9(c) of EO 13514 directs DOE's FEMP, in coordination with EPA, DoD, General Services Administration (GSA), Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Commerce (DOC), and other agencies, as appropriate, to develop and provide recommendations for revised Federal GHG reporting and accounting procedures. On July 18, 2011, the agencies submitted final recommendations for revisions to Federal GHG reporting and accounting procedures to the CEQ Chair.
The Draft Revised Guidance, “Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting” will, when finalized, establish updated government-wide requirements for Federal agencies in calculating and reporting GHG emissions associated with agency operations. CEQ is seeking public comment on this draft guidance for 30 days. The draft guidance document is now available at the Council on Environmental Quality Web site at
Public comments are requested on or before April 11, 2012. Comments received after that date may not be considered.
CEQ recognizes that this guidance is vital to the Federal government's ability to achieve a clean energy economy that will increase our nation's prosperity, promote energy security, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment. CEQ further recognizes that in order to lead by example, the Federal government must be transparent in its processes for accounting and reporting of GHG emissions.
The Federal government seeks to continually improve both the quality of data and methods necessary for calculating GHG emissions. In accordance with EO 13514, additional requirements, methodologies and procedures will be included in future revisions to this document and supporting documents to improve the Federal Government's overall ability to accurately account for and report GHG emissions.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
The following patent is available for licensing: Patent application 12/793,503: AUTO ADJUSTING RANGING DEVICE (a ranging system for use with a projectile launching device).
Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to MHM Technologies, LLC a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent application 12/793,503 (Navy Case 100,000): Filed June 3, 2010, entitled “Auto Adjusting Ranging Device”.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than March 27, 2012.
Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Request for Information (RFI); request for comment.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is interested in continuing to promote the use of financing mechanisms by grantees of the State Energy Program (SEP) and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, in support of energy efficiency and renewable energy activities. To facilitate this process and to allow interested parties to provide suggestions, comments, and information, DOE is publishing this request for information. This request identifies several areas on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving information; however, any input and suggestions considered relevant to the topic are welcome.
Written comments and information are requested by April 11, 2012.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
Christine Platt Patrick, Policy Advisor, U.S Department of Energy, Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program, Mailstop EE-2K, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 287-1546, Email:
The Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs (OWIP) is seeking to promote the use of “evergreen funds” among its grantees. “Evergreen funds” describes generally a use of funds that would allow a grantee to rely on an initial amount of funding to periodically provide support to eligible projects in an on-going basis, for example through a revolving loan fund (RLF) program or a loan loss reserve (LLR) program.
SEP is authorized under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) Evergreen funds such as RLFs and LLRs are eligible uses of funds under SEP to the extent that the activities supported by the loans are eligible activities under the program. The implementing regulations for SEP expressly identify RLFs as an eligible use of SEP funds (10 CFR 420.18(d)).
Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 17151-17158) authorizes the Department to administer the EECBG program. Evergreen funds such as revolving loan funds (RLF) and loan loss reserves (LLR) are eligible uses of funds under the EECBG Program to the extent that the activities supported by the loans are eligible activities under the program. EECBG grantees must comply with statutory law regarding RLFs. 42 U.S.C. 17155(b)(3)(B) mandates a limitation on the use of funds for the establishment (i.e., the capitalization) of RLFs by formula-eligible units of local governments and formula-eligible tribes equal to the greater of 20 percent of the grantee's allocation or $250,000. Funds used for administrative costs to set up a RLF are not subject to this restriction, but are subject to the general limitations established by statute on administrative costs.
For both SEP and the EECBG Program, grantee arrangements for leveraging additional public and private sector funds, including rebates, grants, and other incentives, must be arranged to ensure that Federal funds go to support eligible activities listed in 42 U.S.C. 6322(d)(5)(A) for SEP and 42 U.S.C. 17154(3)-(13) for EECBG. The leveraging of funds may be accomplished through mechanisms such as partnerships with third party lenders, co-lending, third party administration of loans, and loan loss reserves.
The Department would like to continue to promote the use of evergreen funds by grantees of the SEP and EECBG programs. The Department is issuing this initial request for information to allow interested parties an opportunity to provide information that will assist DOE in continuing to promote these mechanisms.
DOE will accept comments in response to this RFI under the timeline provided in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record and will be made publicly available.
The Department encourages interested parties to contact DOE if they would like to meet in person to discuss their comments. The Department's policy
For this RFI, DOE requests comments, information, and recommendations on the following concepts for the purpose of the continued use of evergreen funds by SEP and EECBG grantees. As set forth below, we seek comment on DOE's requirements for (1) Types of Evergreen Funds; (2) Ending an Evergreen Fund After The End of the Grant Period; (3) Monitoring; and (4) Reporting. The sequence of these questions does not reflect any specific DOE preference.
a. Under existing Department rules, evergreen funds such as RLFs and LLRs are eligible uses of funds under the SEP and EECBG Programs to the extent that the activities supported by the loans are eligible activities under the program. DOE would like to continue to promote the use of these types of evergreen funds. Which types of evergreen funds are being used by grantees and subgrantees in both programs? What are the costs and benefits of using these types of evergreen funds?
b. Currently, the SEP and EECBG regulations allow a grantee to elect to use a third party to administer evergreen funds. What recourse should be available for a grantee if a third party fails to follow through on properly administering the financing mechanism? Should that recourse be available if the third party fails just once to properly administer a financing mechanism? Should DOE disallow a third party with a history of poor performance from acting as a third party representative?
Currently, the SEP and EECBG programs allow grantees to end or reduce funding for a RLF program, LLR, or other eligible financing program at any time as long as any remaining funds are used by the grantee for an eligible purpose after submitting and finalizing an amendment through the DOE Project Officer. Alternatively, the funds may be returned to DOE.
a. DOE is considering periodic reporting by grantees that operate evergreen funds that continue beyond the grant period specified in the Recovery Act grant awards. This reporting would be separate from reporting requirements for annual appropriated funds in both programs. DOE seeks comment on whether DOE periodic reporting according to specified conditions and criteria.
b. With regard to such periodic reporting, the Department seeks comment on the following conditions and criteria:
(i) Should reporting occur more frequently than on an annual basis?
(ii) DOE requests comment on the types of information that grantees can provide on evergreen funds, for example how many loans were issued in the period, what types of loans, the dollar amount of loans, what projects were completed, what loans were paid back.
(iii) DOE requests comment on when information on a loan that is defaulted upon can be provided to DOE and what other information grantees can provide in this situation.
(i) DOE requests comments regarding the cost burden placed on grantees for the above described reporting. Please provide a detailed description of the anticipated costs and supporting information.
a. DOE is considering periodic monitoring that would be applicable to all evergreen funds that continue beyond the grant period specified in the Recovery Act grant awards. This requirement would be separate from monitoring requirements for annual appropriated funds in both programs. DOE seeks comment on whether grantees should conduct periodic monitoring according to specified conditions and criteria.
b. With regard to such periodic monitoring, the Department seeks comment on the following conditions and criteria:
(i) Should monitoring occur on more than an annual basis?
(ii) DOE requests comment on the types of information that grantees can provide on evergreen funds, for example how many loans were issued in the period, what types of loans, the dollar amount of loans, what projects were completed, what loans were paid back.
(iii) DOE requests comment on when information on a loan that is defaulted upon can be provided to DOE and what other information grantees can provide in this situation.
(iv) Should monitoring be performed by an independent third party, in addition to DOE monitoring?
(i) DOE requests comments regarding the anticipated cost burden placed on grantees for the above described monitoring. Please provide a detailed description of the costs and supporting information.
42 U.S.C. 6321
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
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 exempt wholesale generator filings:
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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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 corporate filings:
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:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
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 on March 2, 2012, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, Rules 206, 207, and 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission); 18 CFR 385.206 (2012), 18 CFR 385.207 (a)(2), and 385.212 (2012), TGP Granada, LLC (Complainant) filed (1) a formal complaint against the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and Tortoise Capital Resources Corp. (Respondents), requesting the Commission to direct the Respondents to identify the party that will immediately assume the obligation for making transmission capacity on the Eastern Interconnection Project (EIP) available to customers now for use after the April 1, 2015 expiration of the EIP Lease Agreement and (2) a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission confirm that section 23.2 of the PNM tariff allows the permitted assignee of a Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) to change the point of receipt (POR) associated with the TSA without losing its transmission service priority, provided the change will not impair the operation and reliability of PNM's generation, transmission, or distribution systems. If the Commission denies the Complainant's petition for declaratory order, the Complainant requests that the Commission waives sections 22.2 and 23.2 of the PNM tariff, to allow TGP to change the POR without losing its current transmission service priority.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 2, 2012, Bay Gas Storage, LLC filed pursuant to Section 12.2.4 of its Statement of Operating Conditions to revise its Company Use Percentage as more fully described in the filing.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 2, 2012, Randy Mahannah submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2011), part 45 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45 (2011), and Commission Order No. 664 (2005).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Camden County Energy Recovery Associates, L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 26, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on March 2, 2012, New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. (NMGC) filed a Rate Election pursuant to 284.123(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. NMGC proposes to utilize rates that are the same as those contained in NMGC's transportation rate schedules for comparable intrastate service on file with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission as more fully detailed in the petition.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On December 22, 2011, Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund VII filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Mississippi River Chain of Rocks Project No. 14339, to be located immediately upstream of the existing Chain of Rocks impoundment on the Mississippi River, near the City of Madison, in Madison County and St. Clair County, Illinois, and St. Louis County, Missouri. The Chain of Rocks impoundment is owned by the United States Government and operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 3,124-foot-long by 30-foot-high dam constructed with concrete-filled steel cylinders; (2) a new 150-foot-long by 400-foot-wide concrete powerhouse; (3) ten new 12,500-kilowatt low-head bulb hydropower turbines/generators with a total combined generating capacity of 125 megawatts; (4) a new 400-foot-wide intake channel; (5) a new 50-foot-wide by 50-foot-long switchyard; (6) a new 400-foot-wide by 200-foot-long tailrace; (7) a new 9-mile-long, 161-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 766,500 megawatt-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
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (Alabama SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission, the Alabama SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13(e)). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project would be fulfilled through the Programmatic Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in consultation with the Alabama SHPO; Alabama Power Company, the licensee for Project No. 349-173; the Poarch Band of Creek Indians; the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.
For purposes of commenting on the Programmatic Agreement, we propose to add the following persons to the
Take notice that on February 21, 2012 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in Docket No. CP12-73-000, a Prior Notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to replace approximately 3 miles of certain pipeline facilities located in Johnson City, Missouri. Specifically, Southern Star proposes to replace 3 miles of 12-inch diameter XT pipeline by constructing approximately 3 miles of 20-inch diameter XM pipeline which is a continuation of the multi-year program initiated in 2008 to construct the Sedalia 20-inch diameter XM pipeline. The proposed replacement will allow Southern Star to meet a requirement from the Department of Transportation for safety reasons and to eliminate obsolete, acetylene-welded pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Phyllis Medley, Senior Analyst, Regulatory Affairs, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, or call (270) 852-4653, or fax (270) 852-5010, or by email
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend the following MISO-related meetings:
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Task Team, March 23, 2012, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. ET.
MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
The above-referenced meetings are open to the public.
The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. RM01-5,
Docket Nos. ER04-691, EL04-104 and ER04-106,
Docket No. ER05-6,
Docket No. ER05-636,
Order No. 890,
Docket Nos. ER06-18,
Docket No. ER06-56,
Docket No. ER06-192,
Order Nos. 693 and 693-A,
Docket No. AD07-12,
Docket No. ER07-1182,
Docket No. ER07-1372,
Docket Nos. RR07-2,
Docket No. EL08-32,
Docket No. OA08-53,
Docket No. ER08-194,
Docket No. ER08-394,
Docket No. ER08-925,
Docket No. ER08-1074,
Docket No. ER08-1169,
Docket No. RM08-19,
Docket No. AD09-10,
Docket No. AD09-15,
Docket No. ER09-1049,
Docket No. ER09-1074,
Docket No. ER09-1431,
Docket No. AD10-5,
Docket No. AD10-14,
Docket No. EC10-39,
Docket No. EL10-41,
Docket No. EL10-45,
Docket No. EL10-46,
Docket No. EL10-60,
Docket No. ER10-8,
Docket Nos. ER10-9, 10-73, 10-74,
Docket Nos. ER10-209, EL10-12, and ER10-640,
Docket No. ER10-1791,
Docket No. ER10-2090,
Docket No. ER10-2283,
Docket No. ES10-31,
Docket No. PL10-4,
Docket No. RM09-13,
Docket No. RM10-9,
Docket No. RM10-11,
Docket No. RM10-13,
Docket No. RM10-17 and EL09-68,
Docket No. RM10-23 and Order No. 1000,
Docket No. ER11-15,
Docket No. ER11-138,
Docket No. ER11-1991,
Docket No. ER11-3225,
Docket No. ER11-2275,
Docket No. ER11-2700,
Docket No. ER11-3279,
Docket No. ER11-4081,
Docket No. ER11-3728,
Docket No. ER11-3572,
Docket No. ER11-4305,
Docket No. ER12-33,
Docket No. ER12-56,
Docket No. ER12-212,
Docket No. ER12-214,
Docket No. ER12-242,
Docket No. ER12-274,
Docket No. ER12-290,
Docket No. ER12-297,
Docket No. ER12-309,
Docket No. ER12-310,
Docket No. ER12-312,
Docket No. ER12-334,
Docket No. ER12-351,
Docket No. ER11-3415,
Docket No. ER12-427,
Docket No. ER12-450,
Docket No. ER12-451,
Docket No. ER12-480,
Docket No. ER12-517,
Docket No. OA08-53,
Docket No. EL12-11,
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Markets
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held March 28 and 29 at Mount Vernon Place, 900 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC. The CHPAC was created to advise the Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental health.
The Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee will meet March 28 and 29, 2012.
Mount Vernon Place, 900 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC.
Martha Berger, Office of Children's Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2191,
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. No registration is required. Preliminary agenda includes discussion of an advice letters on lead regulations, social determinants of health and children's environmental health, and EPA's Risk Assessment Forum and children's health projects. The full agenda will be posted at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 11, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Second Report and Order and Order contains information collection requirements with respect to the following eight requirements, all of which aims to ensure that providers are qualified to provide iTRS and that the services are provided in compliance with the Commission's rules with no or minimal service interruption.
(A) Required Evidence for Submission for Eligibility Certification. The Second Report and Order and Order requires that potential iTRS providers must provide full and detailed information in its application for certification that show its ability to comply with the Commission's rules. The Second Report and Order and Order requires that applicants must provide a detailed description of how the applicant will meet all non-waived mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS offered, including documentary and other evidence, and in the case of VRS, such documentary and other evidence shall demonstrate that the applicant leases, licenses or has acquired its own facilities and operates such facilities associated with TRS call centers and employees communications assistants, on a full or part-time basis, to staff such call centers at the date of the application. Such evidence shall include but not be limited to:
1. For VRS applicants operating five or fewer call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center operated by the applicant within the United States;
2. For VRS applicants operating more than five call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for a representative sampling (taking into account size (by number of communications assistants) and location) of five call centers operated by the applicant within the United States;
3. For VRS applicants operating call centers outside of the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center operated by the Applicant outside of the United States;
4. For all applicants, a list of individuals or entities that hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the applicant, have the power to vote 10 percent or more of the securities of the applicant, or exercise de jure or de facto control over the applicant, a description of the applicant's organizational structure, and the names of its executives, officers, members of its board of directors, general partners (in the case of a partnership), and managing members (in the case of a limited liability company);
5. For all applicants, a list of the number of applicant's full-time and part-time employees involved in TRS operations, including and divided by the following positions: executives and officers; video phone installers (in the case of VRS), communications assistants, and persons involved in marketing and sponsorship activities;
6. Where applicable, a description of the call center infrastructure, and for all core call center functions (automatic call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS fund, and registration) a statement whether such equipment is owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed) and proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements, including a complete copy of any lease or license agreement for automatic call distribution;
7. For all applicants, copies of employment agreements for all of the provider's employees directly involved in TRS operations, executives and communications assistants, and a list of names of employees directly involved in TRS operations, need not be submitted with the application, but must be retained by the applicant and submitted to the Commission upon request; and
8. For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to Internet-based TRS, including any associated written agreements.
(B) Submission of Annual Report. The Second Report and Order and Order requires that providers submit annual reports that include updates to the information listed under Section A above or certify that there are no changes to the information listed under Section A above.
(C) Requiring Providers to Seek Prior Authorization of Voluntary Interruption of Service. The Second Report and Order and Order requires that a VRS provider seeking to voluntarily interrupt service for a period of 30 minutes or more in duration must first obtain Commission authorization by submitting a written request to the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) at least 60 days prior to any planned service interruption, with detailed information of:
(i) Its justification for such interruption;
(ii) Its plan to notify customers about the impending interruption; and
(iii) Its plans for resuming service, so as to minimize the impact of such disruption on consumers through a smooth transition of temporary service to another provider, and restoration of its service at the completion of such interruption.
(D) Reporting of Unforeseen Service Interruptions. With respect to brief, unforeseen service interruptions or in the event of a VRS provider's voluntary service interruption of less than 30 minutes in duration, the Second Report and Order and Order requires that the affected provider submit a written notification to CGB within two business days of the commencement of the service interruption, with an explanation of when and how the provider has restored service or the provider's plan to do so imminently. In the event the provider has not restored service at the time such report is filed, the provider must submit a second report within two business days of the restoration of service with an explanation of when and how the provider has restored service.
(E) Applicant Certifying Under Penalty of Perjury for Certification Application.
The chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior executive of an applicant for Internet-based TRS certification with first hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, when submitting an application for certification for eligibility to receive compensation from the Intestate TRS Fund, must certify under penalty of perjury that all application information required under the Commission's rules and orders has been provided and that all statements of fact, as well as all documentation contained in the application submission, are true, accurate, and complete.
(F) Certified Provider Certifying Under Penalty of Perjury for Annual Compliance Filings.
The Second Report and Order and Order requires the chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior executive of an Internet-based TRS provider with first hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, when submitting an annual compliance report under paragraph (g) of section 64.606 of the Commission's rules, must certify under penalty of perjury that all information required under the Commission's rules and orders has been provided and all statements of fact, as well as all documentation contained in the annual compliance report submission, are true, accurate, and complete.
(G) Notification of Service Cessation.
The Second Report and Order and Order requires the applicant for certification must give its customers at least 30 days notice that it will no longer provide service should the
(H) Notification on Web site.
The Second Report and Order and Order requires the provider must provide notification of temporary service outages to consumers on an accessible Web site, and the provider must ensure that the information regarding service status is updated on its Web site in a timely manner.
On October 17, 2011, in document FCC 11-155, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), published at 76 FR 67070, October 31, 2011, addressing the petition for reconsideration filed by Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson). Sorenson concurrently filed a PRA comment challenging two aspects of the information collection requirements as being too burdensome. The Commission modified two aspects of information collection requirements contained in the July 28, 2011 Second Report and Order and Order to lessen the burdens on applicants for VRS certification and VRS providers to provide certain documentation to the Commission. In the MO&O, the Commission revised the language in the rules to require that providers that operate five or more domestic call centers only submit copies of proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements for technology and equipment used to support their call center functions for five of their call centers that constitute a representative sample of their centers, rather than requiring copies for all call centers. Further, the Commission clarifies that the rule requiring submission of a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to iTRS only requires that a certification applicant include on the list associated written agreements, and does not require the applicant to provide copies of all written agreements.
Therefore, the information collection requirements listed above in section (A) 6 and 8 were revised to read as follows:
6. A description of the technology and equipment used to support their call center functions—including, but not limited to, automatic call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS Fund, and registration—and for each core function of each call center for which the applicant must provide a copy of technology and equipment proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements in accordance with paragraphs (a)-(d) listed below, a statement whether such technology and equipment is owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed);
(a) For VRS providers operating five or fewer call centers within the United States, a copy of each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for all technology and equipment used to support their call center functions, for each call center operated by the applicant within the United States;
(b) For VRS providers operating more than five call centers within the United States, a copy of each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for technology and equipment used to support their call center functions for a representative sampling (taking into account size (by number of communications assistants) and location) of five call centers operated by the applicant within the United States; a copy of each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for technology and equipment used to support their call center functions for all call centers operated by the applicant within the United States must be retained by the applicant for three years from the date of the application, and submitted to the Commission upon request;
(c) For VRS providers operating call centers outside of the United States, a copy of each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for all technology and equipment used to support their call center functions for each call center operated by the applicant outside of the United States; and
(d) A complete copy of each lease or license agreement for automatic call distribution.
8. For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to Internet-based TRS, including on that list a description of any associated written agreements; copies of all such arrangements and agreements must be retained by the applicant for three years from the date of the application, and submitted to the Commission upon request.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 11, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of public availability of FY 2011 Service Contract inventories.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), FEC PROCUREMENT DIVISION is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2011. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at:
The FEC Procurement Division has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the FEC homepage at the following link:
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Mary Sprague, Chief Financial Officer, at 202-694-1217 or
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 April 4, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Benjamin Gris (202-326-3468), FTC, Bureau of Competition, 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 March 5, 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 April 4, 2012. Write “Western Digital, File No. 111 0122” 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 “Western Digital, File No. 111 0122” 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 (“Commission”) has accepted from Western Digital Corporation (“Western Digital”), subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”), designed to remedy the likely anticompetitive effects resulting from Western Digital's proposed acquisition of Viviti Technologies Ltd., formerly known as Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Ltd. (“HGST”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. (“Hitachi”)
Pursuant to an agreement dated March 7, 2011, Western Digital intends to acquire HGST from Hitachi for approximately $4.5 billion in cash and Western Digital stock. The proposed merger would result in a merger to duopoly in the market for 3.5 inch hard disk drives used in desktop computers (“desktop HDDs”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as
The Consent Agreement remedies the alleged violation by replacing the lost competition in the desktop HDD market that would result from the proposed acquisition. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Western Digital will divest to Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) all of the assets relating to the manufacture and sale of desktop HDDs necessary to replicate HGST's position in the desktop HDD business. The Consent Agreement requires Western Digital to provide Toshiba with access to employees involved in the research, development, and production of desktop HDDs, cross license all intellectual property necessary to manufacture and sell desktop HDDs, and to supply Toshiba with up to 50 percent of certain critical components needed for the divested business. In addition, the Consent Agreement requires Western Digital to contract manufacture desktop HDDs for Toshiba at cost until Toshiba is able to manufacture these products on its own.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the accompanying Decision and Order.
HDDs are key inputs into computers and other electronic devices used to store and allow fast access to data. HDDs are used in various end-use applications including desktop and mobile computers, and in enterprise computing applications.
The relevant line of commerce in which to analyze the effects of the Acquisition is desktop HDDs. Desktop HDDs are utilized in non-portable desktop or tower personal computers. Consumers of these products demand HDDs with the highest available capacity at the lowest price per gigabyte. Desktop HDDs are the only HDDs that meet these specifications. As a result, customers would likely not switch to a different kind of HDD in response to a five to ten percent increase in the price of desktop HDDs in sufficient numbers to make that price increase unprofitable for a hypothetical monopolist.
The relevant geographic market for desktop HDDs is worldwide. Most HDDs, including desktop HDDs, are manufactured in Asia and are shipped to customers worldwide. Also, most large customers negotiate the purchase price of desktop HDDs at a global level.
The desktop HDD market is highly concentrated, with three manufacturers currently in the market. After Western Digital's acquisition of HGST, Western Digital's market share would increase to approximately 50 percent, and the number of suppliers of desktop HDDs would decrease from three to two.
Neither new entry nor repositioning and expansion sufficient to deter or counteract the likely anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition in the desktop HDD market is likely to occur. Deterrents to entry into the desktop HDD market include high capital expenditures and intellectual property barriers. Because the market for desktop HDDs is mature with limited growth potential, it is unlikely that a potential competitor would have the incentive to make the substantial investments necessary to enter this market.
The proposed acquisition likely would result in anticompetitive effects in the market for desktop HDDs. The structure and characteristics of this highly concentrated and mature market, where competitors sell largely homogenous products and have substantial insight into their competitors' price and output levels, suggests that the two remaining firms in the market would likely find it possible and profitable to coordinate on pricing or output. In addition, HDD customers generally wish to have at least three suppliers available to them. The fact that customers have a strong desire to source their desktop HDD purchases from several suppliers simultaneously in order to obtain competitive pricing and adequate supply suggests that the transaction could result in unilateral effects as well.
The Consent Agreement resolves the competitive concerns raised by Western Digital's proposed acquisition of HGST by requiring the divestiture of HGST's assets relating to the manufacture and sale of desktop HDDs to Toshiba. This divestiture must occur within fifteen days after the acquisition but may be extended an additional fifteen days, if necessary, to allow for regulatory approval in other jurisdictions.
Toshiba has the industry experience, reputation, and resources to replace HGST as an effective competitor in the desktop HDD market. Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Toshiba is a diversified manufacturer and marketer of advanced electronic and electrical products spanning digital consumer products, electronic devices and components, power systems, industrial and social infrastructure systems, and home appliances. Toshiba does not currently compete against Western Digital or HGST in the sale of desktop HDDs, but it does manufacture HDDs for use in mobile and enterprise applications. Because Toshiba has extensive experience manufacturing these other types of HDDs, and has a worldwide infrastructure for the research, development, and sale of desktop HDDs, Toshiba is well-positioned to replace the competition that will be eliminated as a result of the proposed transaction.
Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, Toshiba would receive all of the assets necessary to replicate HGST's market position in the desktop HDD business, including sixteen desktop HDD production lines, representing the capacity to produce more than twenty million desktop HDD units per year, along with the product designs for HGST's most recent and advanced desktop HDD products. The Consent Agreement further requires Western Digital to provide Toshiba with access to HGST and/or Western Digital employees involved in the research, development, and production of desktop HDDs. In addition, the Consent Agreement also requires Western Digital to cross license all intellectual property necessary to manufacture and sell desktop HDDs and to supply Toshiba with up to 50 percent of certain critical components needed for the divested business. The Consent Agreement also requires Western Digital to contract manufacture desktop HDDs for Toshiba at cost until Toshiba is able to manufacture these products on its own. A divestiture of HGST's desktop HDD assets to Toshiba will enable Toshiba to compete immediately with the merged entity.
The Commission has appointed Phillip Comerford, Jr., Managing Director and Head of the Mergers & Acquisitions Group of ING Capital LLC, as Interim Monitor to oversee the divestiture of the desktop HDD assets. In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the proposed divestiture, the Consent Agreement requires the parties to file periodic reports with the Commission until the divestiture is accomplished.
If, after the public comment period, the Commission determines that Toshiba is not an acceptable acquirer of
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
After a thorough investigation the Federal Trade Commission has challenged Western Digital Corporation's (“Western Digital”) proposed acquisition of Viviti Technologies Ltd., formerly known as Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (“HGST”). This challenge comes several months after the Federal Trade Commission closed its investigation of Seagate Technology LLC's (“Seagate”) acquisition of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.'s hard disk drive assets (“Samsung”). The two proposed transactions were announced within weeks of each other, and both had potential implications for competition in the same product markets. Commission staff reviewed both matters at the same time in order to understand the effects on competition resulting from each transaction on its own, as well as the cumulative effect on the relevant markets if both transactions were allowed to be consummated.
The evidence gathered in the Commission's investigation revealed that the relevant product markets in which to assess the competitive impact of the proposed transactions are based on specific end-uses for hard disk drives (“HDDs”)—such as desktop, notebook, and enterprise—because product features, pricing, and competition differ by end-use applications. For many of these end-uses, we did not have reason to believe that the proposed transactions would result in effects that would have justified a challenge. In the 3.5 inch desktop HDD (“desktop HDD”) market, however, we had reason to believe the consummation of both of these acquisitions would result in likely anticompetitive effects. The Commission came to this conclusion based on the evidence from interviews with market participants, testimony of the parties' executives, and documents produced by the parties and other industry participants.
The Commission determined after its investigation that there were significant differences between the competitive implications of the two proposed mergers. Since in each case the acquiring firm was a strong competitor, attention turned to the characteristics of the two firms that were to be acquired in these proposed transactions—HGST and Samsung. Based on this analysis, it was clear that an independent HGST was much more likely to be an effective competitive constraint in the desktop HDD market than would an independent Samsung.
In particular, HGST has been a strong, high quality and innovative competitor in the desktop HDD market. Moreover, HGST has been identified by a number of industry participants as a key driver of aggressive price competition in the desktop HDD market in 2010, and was well-positioned to grow its desktop HDD business in the near future. In contrast, Samsung had struggled to be competitive in the desktop HDD market. In a market for desktop HDDs containing only Western Digital, HGST, and the combined Seagate/Samsung entity, HGST would retain the ability and incentive to act as an effective constraint on desktop HDD pricing. By contrast, Samsung would be less likely to serve as a meaningful constraint on pricing in a desktop HDD market consisting of Western Digital/Hitachi, Seagate, and Samsung. Based on these considerations, the Commission made the decision to challenge the Western Digital/HGST transaction while clearing the Seagate/Samsung transaction, and to preserve the competitiveness of the desktop HDD market by requiring Western Digital to divest HGST's desktop HDD assets to Toshiba Corporation under the terms of a proposed Consent Agreement.
As we have explained in other cases, each merger that comes before the Commission is investigated and considered based on the particular facts presented. These investigations bear out the assertion in our Horizontal Merger Guidelines that our review of mergers “is a fact-specific process through which the Agencies, guided by their extensive experience, apply a range of analytical tools to the reasonably available and reliable evidence to evaluate competitive concerns in a limited period of time.”
In addition to the scrutiny they have received from the Commission, many other antitrust enforcement agencies investigated these mergers. Commission staff cooperated with agencies in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and Turkey, and worked closely with the agencies' investigative teams on the timing of review, substantive analyses, and potential remedies, during the pendency of these investigations. This close cooperation with foreign antitrust enforcers helped ensure an outcome that benefited consumers in the United States.
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 77 FR 5804-5812, dated February 6, 2012) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Delete in its entirety the functional statement for the Office of the Chief Operating Officer (CAJ), and insert the following:
Office of the Chief Operating Officer (CAJ). (1) Provides mission and values-based leadership, direction, support and assistance to CDC's programs and activities to enhance CDC's strategic position in public health; ensure responsible stewardship; maintain core values; optimize operational effectiveness of business services; and institutionalize accountability for achieving management initiatives; (2) directs the conduct of operational
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Administrative Services and Program Office (CAJ12).
After the functional statement for the Office of the Director (CAJ1), Office of the Chief Operating Officer (CAJ), insert the following:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CAJ1P). The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), located within the Office of the Chief Operating Officer (OCOO), addresses agency-wide fiscal accountability and oversight. The OCFO supports CDC's mission to “save money through prevention” by ensuring appropriate fiscal stewardship of the tax payer dollar while CDC accomplishes its activities in the areas of disease research, prevention, and early detection. Accordingly, the OCFO: (1) Manages the financial risk of the agency; (2) provides oversight of the agency's financial activities and accounting practices; (3) performs reviews and training in high risk areas for both the agency and the Department where there appears to be fiscal vulnerabilities; (4) provides expertise in interpreting appropriations law issues and financial policy matters; (5) assists in the receipt, distribution and monitoring of agency issues submitted by the Office of the Inspector General Hotline; (6) advises and assists the CDC Director, the Chief Operating Officer, and other key agency officials (both in Program and Business Service Offices) on all fiscal aspects of the agency; and (7) provides support for public health by ensuring that appropriated funds provided to the agency are utilized, in compliance with Congressional mandate, for the sole purpose of preventing and controlling infectious diseases domestically and globally.
Delete in its entirety the title for the Human Capital Management Office (CAJQ), and insert the title Human Capital and Resources Management Office (CAJQ).
After the title and functional statements for the Human Capital and Resources Management Office (CAJQ), insert the following:
Office of the Chief Information Officer (CAJR). The mission of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is to administer CDC's information resources and information technology programs including collection, management, use, and disposition of data and information assets; development, acquisition, operation, maintenance, and retirement of information systems and information technologies; IT capital planning; enterprise architecture; information security; education, training, and workforce development in information and IT disciplines; development and oversight of information and IT policies, standards, and guidance; and administration of certain other general management functions and services for CDC.
Office of the Director (CAJR1). (1) Provides leadership, direction, support and assistance to CDC's programs and activities to enhance CDC's strategic position in public health informatics; information technology, and other information areas to optimize operational effectiveness support of CDC's mission and business services; (2) coordinates and oversees all CDC efforts in these areas; (3) serves as the accountable focus for CDC in these program areas and represents CDC with various external stakeholders, collaborators, service providers, oversight organizations, and others; (4) maintains liaison with officials of HHS responsible for the direction and conduct of such functions; and (5) directs the operations of offices within the OCIO to ensure effective and efficient service delivery and alignment with CDC strategic direction.
Enterprise Information Technology Portfolio Office (CAJR12). (1) Leads, plans, and manages CDC's information technology (IT) budget development and review processes; (2) plans and directs the Capital Planning Investment Control processes including investment selection, control and evaluation, business case analyses, lifecycle reviews, portfolio development, performance measures, and investment prioritization procedures; (3) develops and monitors earned value management analyses of project cost, schedule and deliverable commitments; (4) provides guidance to program and project managers on the use of the tools for preparing investment documentation that meet CDC, HHS, and OMB requirements; (5) develops CDC IT strategic and tactical plans; (6) leads development of the enterprise architecture and transition strategies; (7) collaborates with CDC staff to develop business process models for CDC public health functions; (8) develops and maintains a shared services catalog to promote reuse of existing resources; (9) supports CDC information resource governance structures including common processes, tools, techniques; (10) identifies needs and develops strategies and approaches to acquire and manage enterprise statistical software licenses; and (11) develops internal cost allocation methods and coordinates allocation of costs for annual license renewal payments.
Freedom of Information Act Office (CAJR13). (1) Leads and administers the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program for CDC and ATSDR; (2) reviews, analyzes, redacts as necessary, and releases documents to the public under the provisions of the Act; (3) tracks and monitors FOIA requests and responses to ensure timely and appropriate responses; (4) provides guidance to employees, supervisors, management, OGC and high-level agency officials on various aspects of the Act; (5) interprets and applies legal and technical precedents, laws and regulations relating to FOIA issues; and (6) provides training to program staff and management concerning FOIA requirements and processing.
CIMS Program Management Office (CAJR14). (1) Plans, develops, manages, and conducts oversight of CDC's information services contracts; (2) coordinates and facilitates contracts use including requirements development, specifications, performance needs, quality assurance and service delivery, and contract administration; and (3)
Remove all CAJD standard administrative codes for the Information Technology Services Office (CAJD), and replace with the following:
Information Technology Services Office (CAJRB), Office of the Director (CAJRB1), Operations Branch (CARBB), Network Technology Branch (CAJRBC), Customer Services Branch (CAJRBD).
Remove all CAJG standard administrative codes for the Management Analysis and Services Office (CAJG), and replace with the following:
Management Analysis and Services Office (CAJRC), Office of the Director (CAJRC1), Management Assessment Branch (CAJRCB), Information Services Branch (CAJRCC), Business Process Analysis Branch (CAJRCD), Federal Advisory Committee Management Branch (CAJRCE),
Remove the CAJN standard administrative code for the Management Information Systems Office (CAJN), and replace with Management Information Systems Office (CAJRD).
After the functional statement for the Management Information Systems Office (CAJRD), insert the following:
Office of the Chief Information Security Officer (CAJRE). The mission of the Office of the Chief Information Security Officer (OCISO) is to administer CDC's information security program to protect CDC's information, information systems, and information technology commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information collected or maintained by or on behalf of the agency.
Office of the Director (CAJRE1). (1) Manages and directs the activities and functions of the Office of the Chief Information Security Officer; (2) develops and maintains a CDC-wide information security program; (3) develops and maintains information security policies, procedures and control techniques to address the responsibilities assigned to the CDC under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and other governing statutes, regulations, and policies; (4) coordinates the professional development and operating procedures of CDC staff substantially involved in information security responsibilities; (5) assists CDC senior management concerning their FISMA responsibilities; and (6) ensures privacy management so personally identifiable information is appropriately collected, processed, stored and protected.
Operations, Analysis and Response Branch (CAJREB). (1) Performs continuous monitoring functions including enterprise security log correlation, vulnerability and compliance scanning and risk assessments; (2) performs network monitoring, security event correlation, forensic investigations, data recovery and malware analysis; (3) develops and maintains the CDC Computer Security Incident Response Team; (4) performs cyber security incident reporting according to US-CERT reporting guidelines; (5) facilitates cyber security incident remediation; (6) coordinates with law enforcement agencies and participates in cyber security intelligence activities; (7) develops enterprise security architecture, firewall management, cyber security tool management and CDC information resource governance—security component; and (8) supports OCISO IT operations; and (9) performs security product research and development, evaluation and testing.
Policy and Planning Branch (CAJREC). (1) Coordinates compliance and audit reviews; (2) develops cyber security policies and standards; (3) conducts system security tests and evaluations and identifies, assesses, prioritizes, and monitors the progress of corrective efforts for security weaknesses found in programs and systems; (4) maintains the Security Awareness Training program and coordinates significant security responsibilities and IT security training; (5) reviews and approves security and privacy related elements of OMB business cases; (6) conducts OCISO internal audit program and contract language reviews for information security and privacy act clearance decisions; (7) coordinates critical infrastructure protection continuity operations plans, data call management, E-Authentication and security requirements of CDC information system development; (8) conducts security reviews of non-standard software for use at CDC; and (9) coordinates FISMA security milestone oversight reporting and is the Office of Inspector General and Government Accounting Office Audit Liaison.
Data will be collected from all 61 Community-Centered Healthy Marriage, 53 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood and 4 Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry grantees in the OFA programs. Grantees will report on program and participant outcomes in such areas as participants' improvement in knowledge skills, attitudes, and behaviors related to healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Grantees will be asked to input data for selected outcomes for activities funded under the grants. Grantees will extract data from program records and will report the data twice yearly through an on-line data collection tool. Training and assistance will be provided to grantees to support this data collection process.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting entitled “Preparation for ICH Steering Committee and Expert Working Group Meetings in Fukuoka, Japan” to provide information and receive comments on the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) as well as the upcoming meetings in Fukuoka, Japan. The topics to be discussed are the topics for discussion at the forthcoming ICH Steering Committee Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public input prior to the next Steering Committee and Expert Working Group meetings in Fukuoka, Japan, scheduled on June 2 through 7, 2012, at which discussion of the topics underway and the future of ICH will continue.
Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally or in writing, on issues pending at the public meeting. Public oral presentations will be scheduled between approximately 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. Time allotted for oral presentations may be limited to 10 minutes. Those desiring to make oral presentations should notify the contact person (see
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kimberly Franklin (see
The ICH was established in 1990 as a joint regulatory/industry project to improve, through harmonization, the efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal products in
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for medical product development among regulatory Agencies. ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. ICH is concerned with harmonization among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations. The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and Health Canada, the European Free Trade Area, and the World Health Organization. The ICH process has achieved significant harmonization of the technical requirements for the approval of pharmaceuticals for human use in the three ICH regions.
The current ICH process and structure can be found at the following Web site:
The agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Philip Bautista at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
(1) Plan, develop, and implement a prospective cohort study, from birth to adulthood, to evaluate the effects of both chronic and intermittent exposures on child health and human development; and
(2) Investigate basic mechanisms of developmental disorders and environmental factors, both risk and protective, that influence health and developmental processes.
(1) Incorporate behavioral, emotional, educational, and contextual consequences to enable a complete assessment of the physical, chemical, biological, and psychosocial environmental influences on children's well-being;
(2) Gather data on environmental influences and outcomes on diverse populations of children, which may include the consideration of prenatal exposures; and
(3) consider health disparities among children, which may include the consideration of prenatal exposures.
To fulfill the requirements of the Children's Health Act, the results of formative research will be used to maximize the efficiency (measured by scientific robustness, participant and infrastructure burden, and cost) of environmental sample collection procedures and technology, storage procedures, accompanying questionnaires, and assays, and thereby inform data collection methodologies for the National Children's Study (NCS) Vanguard and Main Studies. With this submission, the NCS seeks to obtain OMB's generic clearance to collect environmental samples from homes and child care settings, and conduct accompanying short surveys related to the physical and chemical environment.
The NCS has obtained OMB's generic clearance to conduct survey and instrument design and administration, focus groups, cognitive interviews, and health and social service provider feedback information collection surrounding outreach, recruitment and retention (OMB # 0925-0590; Expiration Date 9/30/2014). Under separate notice, the NCS is also requesting generic clearance to conduct formative research featuring biospecimen and physical measures (OMB # 0925-0647, Expiration Date 1/31/2015), neurodevelopmental (pending clearance), and study logistic (pending clearance) information collection. Separate and distinct generic clearances are requested to facilitate the efficiency of submissions and review of these projects as requested by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The National Children's Study is a prospective, national longitudinal study of the interaction between environment, genetics on child health and development. The Study defines “environment” broadly, taking a number of natural and man-made environmental, biological, genetic, and psychosocial factors into account. By studying children through their different phases of growth and development, researchers will be better able to understand the role these factors have on health and disease. Findings from the Study will be made available as the research progresses, making potential benefits known to the public as soon as possible. The National Children's Study is led by a consortium of federal partners: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (including the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
To conduct the detailed preparation needed for a study of this size and complexity, the NCS was designed to include a preliminary pilot study known as the Vanguard Study. The purpose of the Vanguard Study is to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and cost of the recruitment strategy, study procedures, and outcome assessments that are to be used in the NCS Main Study. The Vanguard Study begins prior to the NCS Main Study and will run in parallel with the Main Study. At every phase of the NCS, the multiple methodological studies conducted during the Vanguard phase will inform the implementation and analysis plan for the Main Study.
In this request, the NCS is requesting generic approval from OMB for formative research activities relating to the collection, storage, management, and assay of environmental samples and accompanying questionnaires. The results from these formative research projects will inform the feasibility (scientific robustness), acceptability (burden to participants and study logistics) and cost of NCS Vanguard and Main Study environmental sample and information collection in a manner that minimizes public information collection burden compared to burden anticipated if these projects were incorporated directly into either the NCS Vanguard or Main Study.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Dr. Sarah L. Glavin, Deputy Director, Office of Science Policy, Analysis and Communication, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 31 Center Drive Room 2A18, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, or call non-toll free number (301) 496-1877 or Email your request, including your address to
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c) (2) (A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Erin Smith, Contracting Officer's Technical Representative, NHLBI, Room 9149, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7950, or call 301-435-0050, or Email your request to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
60-Day notice of information collection under review; Form I-590, registration for classification as refuge.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 11, 2012.
During this 60 day period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise the Form I-590. Should USCIS decide to revise Form I-590 we will advise the public when we publish the 30-day notice in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-0997 or via email at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning the extension of the Form I-590. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at
(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 agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the Web site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020, Telephone number 202-272-8377.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information: 1651-0105.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Application to Use the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Written comments should be received on or before May 11, 2012, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of Funding Awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department for funding under the FY 2009 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Rental Assistance for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of those award recipients selected for funding based on the funding criteria established in the NOFA.
Darrin C. Dorsett, Grant Management Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., B133 Potomac Center, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC, 20410 telephone number 202-475-8861. For the hearing or speech impaired, these numbers may be accessed via TTY (text telephone) by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the “800” TTY number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
This program is intended to provide incremental Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) for non-elderly disabled families served by Public Housing Authorities with demonstrated experience and resources for supportive services. Vouchers provided under this program will enable non-elderly disabled families to access affordable housing, and enable non-elderly persons with disabilities to transition from nursing homes and other health-care institutions into the community.
On April 7, 2010, HUD posted its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Rental Assistance for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2009. The NOFA addressed comments submitted in response to HUD's proposed Rental Assistance for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities NOFA published in the
The Fiscal Year 2009 awards announced in this Notice were selected for funding in a competition announced in the NOFA posted on April 7, 2010. In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 74 awards (totaling $40,082,396) made under the Rental Assistance for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities competition.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the FY2010 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Family Unification Program (FUP). This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of the award recipients for this year under the FUP Program.
Lisa Smyth, Grants Management Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., B133 Potomac Center, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-475-8835. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
The FUP provides grants to public housing authorities (PHAs) that have an existing Annual Contributions Contracts (ACC) with HUD for Housing Choice Vouchers to provide voucher assistance for obtaining adequate housing as a means to promote family unification. More specifically, the FUP vouchers will be
The FY2010 awards announced in this notice identify applicants that were selected for funding in a competition posted on HUD's Web site on October 5, 2010. Applications were reviewed and selected based on rating and scoring in accordance with the FUP NOFA, which made approximately $15 million available for distribution.
In accordance with Section 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 32 awards made under the competition in Appendix A to this notice.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Public and Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (PH-FSS) Program for FY 2011. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of those award recipients selected for funding based on the funding priority categories established in the NOFA.
Andrea Edmond, Grant Management Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., B133 Potomac Center, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-475-8851. For the hearing or speech impaired, these numbers may be accessed via TTY (text telephone) by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the “800” TTY number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The PH-FSS Program is designed to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under the Public Housing program with public and private resources, enable participating families to increase earned income and financial literacy, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare assistance, and make progress toward achieving economic independence and housing self-sufficiency. The PH-FSS program provides critical tools that can be used by communities to support welfare reform and help families develop new skills that will lead to economic self-sufficiency. A PH-FSS Program Coordinator assures that program participants are linked to the supportive services they need to achieve self-sufficiency.
On April 21, 2011, HUD posted its PH-FSS NOFA. The NOFA made available approximately $15,000,000 in one-year budget authority under the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10, approved April 15, 2011). The Department reviewed, evaluated, and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the FY 2011 NOFA, and has funded the applications announced in Appendix A. In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 238 awards made under the Public and Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program under Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Program competition.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) HCV-FSS program for FY 2011. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of those award recipients selected for funding based on the funding priority categories established in the NOFA.
Darrin C. Dorsett, Grant Management Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., B133 Potomac Center, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-475-8861. For the hearing or speech impaired, these numbers may be accessed via TTY (text telephone) by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the “800” TTY number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The HCV-FSS Program is intended to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under the HCV program with public and private resources to enable participating families to increase earned income and financial literacy, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare assistance, and make progress toward economic independence and self-sufficiency. The HCV-FSS program provides critical tools that can be used by communities to help families develop new skills that will lead to economic self-sufficiency. As a result of their participation in the HCV-FSS program, many families have achieved stable employment. An HCV-FSS program coordinator assures that program participants are linked to the supportive services they need to achieve self-sufficiency. In addition to working directly with families, an HCV-FSS Program Coordinator is responsible for building partnership with employers and service providers in the community to help participants obtain jobs and services.
On April 21, 2011, HUD posted its FY 2011 HCV-FSS NOFA. The NOFA made approximately $59.8 million available under the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10, approved April 15, 2011). The Department reviewed, evaluated and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the FY 2011 NOFA, and has funded the applications announced in Appendix A In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 659 awards made under the FY 2011 HCV-FSS Program competition.
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of Funding Awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department for funding under the FY 2011 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Public and Indian Housing Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS)—Service Coordinators Program for Fiscal Year 2011. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of those award recipients selected for funding based on the funding priority categories established in the NOFA.
Joseph E. Taylor, Grant Management Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., B133 Potomac Center, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-475-8852. For the hearing or speech impaired, these numbers may be accessed via TTY (text telephone) by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the “800” TTY number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The purpose of the Public and Indian Housing Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators program is to provide grants to public housing agencies (PHAs), tribes/tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs), Resident Associations (RAs), and nonprofit organizations (including grassroots, faith-based and other community-based organizations) for the provision of a Service Coordinator to coordinate supportive services and other activities designed to help Public and Indian housing residents attain economic and housing self-sufficiency. This program works to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under the Public Housing program with public and private resources, for supportive services and resident empowerment activities. A Service Coordinator ensures that program participants are linked to the supportive services they need to achieve self-sufficiency or remain independent.
On April 21, 2011, HUD posted its FY 2011 Public and Indian Housing Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators NOFA. The NOFA made approximately $35 million available under the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10, approved April 15, 2011). The Department reviewed, evaluated, and scored the applications received based on the criteria published by the FY 2011 NOFA and has funded the applications announced in Appendix A. In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 110 awards made under the Public and Indian Housing Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS)—Service Coordinators Program competition.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the Department of the Interior, announce a public meeting of the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Advisory Committee (Committee).
The meeting will be held at The Fort Mason Center Fire House, San Francisco, CA. The entrance for The Fort Mason Center is at Marina Blvd. and Buchanan Street. For specific directions, contact Lisa Young (see
Lisa Young, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), 1849 C Street NW., MS 3559, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 208-7586; fax (202) 208-5873; or email
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, we announce that the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Advisory Committee will hold a meeting.
Chartered in November 2011, the committee is a discretionary advisory committee established under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Interior with recommendations on: (1) Developing a framework for the 21CSC, including program components, structure, and implementation, as well as accountability and performance evaluation criteria to measure success; (2) the development of certification criteria for 21CSC providers and individual certification of 21CSC members; (3) strategies to overcome existing barriers to successful 21CSC program implementation; (4) identifying partnership opportunities with corporations, private businesses or entities, foundations, and non-profit groups, as well as state, local, and tribal governments, to expand support for conservation corps programs, career training and youth employment opportunities; (5) and developing pathways for 21 CSC participants for future conservation engagement and natural resource careers.
Background information on the Committee is available at
The Committee will convene to consider the initial recommendations from the subcommittees; and other Committee business. The public will be able to make comment on Thursday, March 29, 2012 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The final agenda will be posted on
Interested members of the public may present, either orally or through written comments, information for the Committee to consider during the public meeting. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak, but could not be accommodated during the public comment period, are encouraged to submit their comments in written form to the Committee after the meeting.
Individuals or groups requesting to make comment at the public Committee meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 45 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Lisa Young, DFO, in writing (preferably via email), by March 23, 2012. (
In order to attend this meeting, you must register by close of business March 23, 2012. The meeting location is open to the public. Space is limited, so all interested in attending should pre-register. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Lisa Young via email at
Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are hosting several upcoming tribal consultation sessions. The purpose of the sessions is to obtain tribal input on: the Administrative Organizational Assessment Draft Report on the organization of the AS-IA; ways to streamline the organizations of the BIA and the BIE; Johnson-O'Malley student count update; and the draft SF-424B assurance statement—non-construction programs.
See the
See the
For the Administrative Organizational Assessment Draft Report, contact: Paul Tsosie, Chief of Staff, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, (202) 208-7163. For BIA Streamlining, contact: Bryan Rice, Deputy Bureau Director, Office of Trust Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, (202) 208-7513. For BIE Streamlining, the Johnson-O'Malley Student Count Update, or Draft SF-424B Assurance Statement—Non-construction Programs, contact: Brian Drapeaux, Chief of Staff, Bureau of Indian Education, (202) 208-6123.
The AS-IA, BIA, and BIE will be hosting the following tribal consultation sessions and invite tribal leaders to participate:
The agenda for each of the sessions will be as follows (all times are local):
A brief description of each of the topics is provided below. Further information is available at:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the
You must submit comments on or before April 11, 2012.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
In 1998, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), a management organization with representatives from each State on the Atlantic Coast, developed a horseshoe crab management plan. The ASMFC plan and its subsequent addenda established mandatory State-by-State harvest quotas, and created the 1,500-square-mile Carl N. Shuster, Jr., Horseshoe Crab Sanctuary off the mouth of Delaware Bay.
Although restrictive measures have been taken in recent years, populations are increasing slowly. Because horseshoe crabs do not breed until they are 9 years or older, it may take some time before the population measurably increases. Federal and State agencies, universities, and biomedical companies participate in a Horseshoe Crab Cooperative Tagging Program. The Maryland Fishery Resources Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, maintains the information that we collect under this program and uses it to evaluate migratory patterns, survival, and abundance of horseshoe crabs.
Agencies that tag and release the crabs complete FWS Form 3-2311 (Horseshoe Crab Tagging) and provide the Service with:
• Organization name.
• Contact person name.
• Tag number.
• Sex of crab.
• Prosomal width.
• Capture site, latitude, longitude, waterbody, State, and date.
Members of the public who recover tagged crabs provide the following information using FWS Form 3-2310 (Horseshoe Crab Recapture Report):
• Tag number.
• Whether or not tag was removed.
• Whether or not the tag was circular or square.
• Condition of crab.
• Date captured/found.
• Crab fate.
• Finder type.
• Capture method.
• Capture location.
• Reporter information.
• Comments.
If the public participant who reports the tagged crab requests information, we send data pertaining to the tagging program and tag and release information on the horseshoe crab that was found or captured.
Commenter 1 appreciated the opportunity to tag horseshoe crabs and suggested that public outreach is an important component of the program and that increased public outreach would be useful.
Commenter 2 said that the public outreach component has been very useful and the tagging program has benefited horseshoe crab management and increased public awareness of management issues.
Commenter 3 said that both the scientific merit and public outreach components of the program have been very useful. The tagging program has benefited horseshoe crab management and increased public awareness of management issues.
Commenter 4 discussed the scientific merit of the tagging program and said
Commenter 5 was supportive of the information collection, and commented that the scientific data provided by the program has been very useful for horseshoe crab management. Information was collected efficiently and the burden estimates were accurate.
Commenter 6 opposed the use of horseshoe crabs by biomedical companies and proposed a ban on the use of horseshoe crabs for any purpose.
Commenter 7 said that the tagging program is not necessary and the data generated by the program is not useful. The commenter also opposed the commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs and the use of horseshoe crabs by biomedical companies. The commenter proposed a ban on the use of horseshoe crabs for any purpose.
Commenter 8 discussed the scientific merit of the tagging program and said that it has been very useful for horseshoe crab management purposes. The commenter suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service increase efforts in resighting tagged crabs outside the Delaware Bay area. While we recognize that increasing effort for resighting tagged crabs would increase the quality of the scientific data, there is substantial cost associated with increasing that effort. At this time, we do not have any additional funds to increase tag recovery efforts on beaches (done by our cooperators at this time). We will encourage our cooperators to increase efforts in tag recovery outside the Delaware Bay area. The commenter also suggested we develop an application for smart phones in addition to the online reporting system that we currently offer. We will explore the development of an app for smart phones to provide another method for tag reporting.
Commenter 9 discussed the scientific merit of the tagging program and said that it has been very useful to horseshoe crab and shorebird management (whose population levels are of concern). The commenter suggested that we increase efforts on spawning beaches of Maryland and Virginia to recover tags, record time searching for tags to determine catch-per-unit-effort, and use formal models to determine survival of bled crabs from the Lysate industry. As with previous comments, we will encourage our cooperators to increase tag recovery efforts on the Maryland and Virginia beaches; however, without increased funding, we will not be able to increase tag recovery efforts without the assistance of cooperators. Some formal studies are being done by our cooperators using the Service tagging program to evaluate impacts of both tagging and of the Lysate bleeding programs. We will continue to support the tagging programs that are evaluating crab survival. The commenter also suggested that we should facilitate batch reporting of crabs on the phone and to encourage tag reporting by commercial fishermen. At this time we do not have any additional funds to provide increased incentives to fishermen, increase tag recovery efforts on beaches (done by our cooperators at this time), or increase efforts to solicit tag data from commercial fishermen. We will work with our cooperators to attempt to get better distribution of tag recovery efforts.
Commenter 10 provided comments similar in nature to Commenters 4 and 9.
We did not make any changes to our information collection requirements based on the above comments.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• 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.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before April 11, 2012.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
The regulations at 50 CFR 20.134 outline the application and approval process for new types of nontoxic shot. When considering approval of a candidate material as nontoxic, we must ensure that it is not hazardous in the environment and that secondary exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its components) is not a hazard to migratory birds. To make that decision, we require each applicant to provide information about the solubility and toxicity of the candidate material. Additionally, for law enforcement purposes, a noninvasive field detection device must be available to distinguish candidate shot from lead shot. This information constitutes the bulk of an application for approval of nontoxic shot. The Director uses the data in the application to decide whether or not to approve a material as nontoxic.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• 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.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2012. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before April 11, 2012.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
(1) Monitor the quality of services provided by commercial guides.
(2) Gauge client satisfaction with the services.
(3) Assess the impacts of the activity on refuge resources.
The client is the best source of information on the quality of commercial guiding services. We collect:
(1) Client name.
(2) Guide name(s).
(3) Type of guided activity.
(4) Dates and location of guided activity.
(5) Information on the services received such as the client's expectations, safety, environmental impacts, and client's overall satisfaction.
We encourage respondents to provide any additional comments that they wish regarding the guide service or refuge experience, and ask whether or not they wish to be contacted for additional information.
The above information, in combination with State-required guide activity reports and contacts with guides and clients in the field, provides a comprehensive method for monitoring permitted commercial guide activities. A regular program of client evaluation helps refuge managers detect potential problems with guide services so that we can take corrective actions promptly. In addition, we use this information during the competitive selection process for big game and sport fishing guide permits to evaluate an applicant's ability to provide a quality guiding service.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• 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.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of extension of an existing information collection (1028-0048).
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an information collection request (ICR) for the revision of the currently approved paperwork requirements for the
You must submit comments on or before April 11, 2012.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior via email to
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7199 (fax); or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jim Dewey at (303) 273-8419.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee (GSENMAC) will meet as indicated below.
The GSENMAC will meet Tuesday, April 17, 2012, (1 p.m.-6 p.m.); Wednesday, April 18, 2012, (8 a.m.-5 p.m.); and Thursday, April 19, 2012, (8 a.m.-12 p.m.) in Escalante, Utah.
The Committee will meet at the Escalante Interagency Visitor Center, 755 West Main, Escalante, Utah.
Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs Officer, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Bureau of Land Management, 669 South Highway 89A, Kanab, Utah, 84741; phone (435) 644-1209.
The 15-member GSENMAC was appointed by the Secretary of Interior on August 2, 2011, pursuant to the Monument Management Plan, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA). As specified in the Monument Management Plan, the GSENMAC will have several primary tasks (1) Review evaluation reports produced by the Management Science Team and make recommendations on protocols and projects to meet overall objectives. (2) Review appropriate research proposals and make recommendations on project necessity and validity. (3) Make recommendations regarding allocation of research funds through review of research and project proposals as well as needs identified through the evaluation process above. (4) Could be consulted on issues such as protocols for specific projects.
Topics to be discussed by the GSENMAC during this meeting include approval of committee by-laws, review of the draft GSENM Science Plan, MAC participation in development of a Hole-In-The-Rock corridor management strategy, future meeting dates and other matters as may reasonably come before the GSENMAC. A field trip is planned for the morning of April 18 to familiarize GSENMAC members with the Hole-In-The-Rock corridor.
The entire meeting is open to the public. Members of the public are welcome to address the committee at 5 p.m., local time on April 17, 2012. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, a time limit could be established. Interested persons may make oral statements to the GSENMAC during this time or written statements may be submitted for the GSENMAC's consideration. Written statements can be sent to: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Attn: Larry Crutchfield, 669 South Highway 89A, Kanab, Utah, 84741. Information to be distributed to the GSENMAC is requested 10 days prior to the start of the GSENMAC meeting.
All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability and requests comments on a draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, Wisconsin
The draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) will remain available for public review and comment for 60 days following the Environmental Protection Agency's publication in the “
Copies of the draft GMP/EIS are available from the Superintendent, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711.
Meeting times and locations will be announced in the local press, sent out to the mailing list for this project, and uploaded to the plan Web site at
You may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may comment via the Internet through the Web site above. You may also send comments to Superintendent, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. You may contact the
Superintendent, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. Telephone 402-441-5610.
This GMP/EIS is a joint state and federal effort addressing lands within the Cross Plains Unit of the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve as well as the Interpretive Site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail; these lands are referred to as the “Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains” for the purpose of this planning effort. This plan will guide the management of the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains for the next 25 years.
The draft GMP/EIS considers five draft conceptual alternatives—a no-action and four action alternatives, including the NPS-preferred alternative. The draft GMP/EIS assesses impacts of the alternatives on soil resources, water quality, soundscapes, vegetation and wildlife, socioeconomics, and visitor use and experience. The preferred alternative focuses on providing visitors with interpretation of the evolution of the complex from the last glacial retreat to the present and opportunities to enjoy appropriate low-impact outdoor recreation. Ecological resources would largely be managed to reveal the glacial landscape. The most sensitive ecological areas would be carefully protected, and visitor access would be highly controlled in these areas. Visitors would experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. Under this alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve as the headquarters for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail.
Before including your address, telephone number, electronic mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Termination of Environmental Impact Statement.
The National Park Service is terminating the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the General Management Plan, Pinnacles National Monument, California. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the General Management Plan (GMP) was published in the
This new GMP will update the overall direction for the national monument, setting broad goals for managing the area over the next 15 to 20 years. As noted above, the GMP was originally scoped as an EIS. However, few substantive comments were received during the public scoping process, and no issues having potential for significant or controversial impacts were identified. The current Master Plan was approved in 1975.
In the general management planning process to date, the NPS planning team developed four preliminary alternatives for the management of the monument, none of which would result in substantial changes in the operation and management of the area. The three “action” alternatives define desired future conditions for new lands recently acquired, and address parkwide cultural and natural resource protection, wilderness stewardship, administration and operations, and opportunities for expanding interpretation and visitor opportunities where appropriate. Preliminary analysis of the alternatives has revealed no potential for major (nor significant) effects on the quality of the human environment, nor any potential for impairment of monument resources and values. Most of the impacts which could result from the alternatives are expected to be negligible to minor in magnitude, with the remainder being of a minor to moderate level.
For these reasons the NPS has determined that the requisite conservation planning and environmental impact analysis necessary for developing the GMP may be completed through preparation of an EA. For further information about this determination or other aspects of the GMP process, please contact: Karen Beppler-Dorn, Superintendent, Pinnacles National Monument, 5000 Highway 146, Paicines, CA 95043 (telephone: (831) 389-4486x222; email:
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice of opportunity to provide written comments in connection with the Commission's third annual review.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) has announced its schedule, including deadlines for filing written submissions, in connection with the preparation of its third annual review in investigation No. 332-503,
April 12, 2012: Deadline for filing written submissions.
July 26, 2012: Transmittal of third report to House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions, including requests to appear at the hearing, statements, and briefs, should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Laura Rodriguez (202-205-3499 or
Section 404 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (DR-CAFTA Act) (19 U.S.C. 4112) required the Secretary of Commerce to establish an Earned Import Allowance Program (EIAP) and directed the Commission to conduct annual reviews of the program for the purpose of evaluating its effectiveness and making recommendations for improvements. Section 404 of the DR-CAFTA Act authorizes certain apparel articles wholly assembled in an eligible country to enter the United States free of duty if accompanied by a certificate that shows evidence of the purchase of certain U.S. fabric. The term “eligible country” is defined to mean the Dominican Republic. More specifically, the program allows producers (in the Dominican Republic) that purchase a certain quantity of qualifying U.S. fabric for use in the production of certain bottoms of cotton in the Dominican Republic to receive a credit that can be used to ship a certain quantity of eligible apparel using third country fabrics from the Dominican Republic to the United States free of duty.
Section 404(d) directs the Commission to conduct an annual review of the program for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the program and making recommendations for improvements. The Commission is required to submit its reports containing the results of its reviews to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. The Commission submitted its report on its first annual review (USITC Publication 4175) on July 28, 2010, its report on its second annual review (USITC Publication 4246) on July 22, 2011, and it expects to submit its report on its third annual review by July 26, 2011.
The Commission instituted this investigation pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to facilitate docketing of submissions and also to facilitate public access to Commission records through the Commission's EDIS electronic records system.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform to the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's
The Commission intends to publish only a public report in this review. Consequently, the report that the Commission sends to the committees will not contain any confidential business information. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing its report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in Patent No. US 6,706,549, Multi-Functional Micro Electromechanical Devices and Method of Bulk Manufacturing Same, LEW 17,170-1; and Patent No. US 6,845,664, MEMS Direct Chip Attach Packaging Methodologies and Apparatuses for Harsh Environments, LEW 17,256-1, to Spectre Corporation, having its
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Intellectual Property Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, MS 21-14, NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Rd, Cleveland, OH 44135. Phone (216) 433-5754. Facsimile (216) 433-6790.
Kaprice Harris, Intellectual Property Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, MS 21-14, NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Rd, Cleveland, OH 44135. Phone (216) 433-5754. Facsimile (216) 433-6790. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
10 a.m., Thursday, March 15, 2012.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. Final Rule—Parts 701, 760 and 790 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Technical Amendments.
2. NCUA's Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.
3. Quarterly Insurance Fund Report.
10:45 a.m.
11 a.m., Thursday, March 15, 2012.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Creditor Claim Appeal. Closed pursuant to exemptions (6) and (8).
2. Consideration of Supervisory Activities. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B) and 9(ii).
Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of public availability of FY 2011 service contract inventory.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2011 Service Contract Inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2011. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Barry Maynes, Director, Administrative Services Office at 202-606-8233 or
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
If you plan to attend the meeting, please send an email with your name and affiliation to the individual listed above, by the day before the meeting, so that a visitor badge can be prepared.
• Welcome.
• Update on outreach activities.
• Discussion of potential pilots of enhancements to the merit review process.
For latest details information, please check with this following link:
National Science Foundation.
Correction to notice of permit modification request received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
On March 5, 2012, the
The public notice period ends March 22, 2012.
Comments should be addressed to the Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Polly A. Penhale, Environmental Officer, at the above address or (703) 292-8030.
A notice of a permit modification request was published in the
Thursday, March 29, 2012, 10 a.m. (Open Portion) 10:15 a.m. (Closed Portion).
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Meeting open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.).
1. President's Report.
2. Confirmations:
Roberto R. Herencia as a member of the Board Audit Committee.
Allen Villabroza as Vice President & Chief Financial Officer.
3. Minutes of the Open Session of the December 8, 2011 Board of Directors Meeting.
(Closed to the Public 10:15 a.m.):
1. Finance Project—India.
2. Finance Project—Global.
3. Finance Project—Turkey.
4. Insurance Project—Ghana.
5. Minutes of the Closed Session of the December 8, 2011 Board of Directors Meeting.
6. Reports.
7. Pending Major Projects.
Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 6c-7 (17 CFR 270.6c-7) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules or forms. The Commission does not include in the estimate of average burden hours the time preparing registration statements and sales literature disclosure regarding the restrictions on redeemability imposed by Texas law. The estimate of burden hours for completing the relevant registration statements are reported on the separate PRA submissions for those statements. (See the separate PRA submissions for Form N-3 (17 CFR 274.11b) and Form N-4 (17 CFR 274.11c.)
The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15g-5 requires brokers and dealers to disclose to customers the amount of compensation to be received by their sales agents in connection with penny stock transactions. The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks generally and specific penny stock transactions.
The Commission estimates that approximately 209 broker-dealers will spend an average of 87 hours annually to comply with the rule. Thus, the total compliance burden is approximately 18,183 burden-hours per year.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
The commission may not conduct or sponsor collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The purpose of Form 12b-25 (17 CFR 240.12b-25) is to provide notice to the Commission and the marketplace that a public company will be unable to timely file a required periodic report or transition report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB is hereby filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to establish a subscription to historical information and documents submitted to the MSRB's Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency System (“SHORT System”). The SHORT System collects and disseminates information and documents for municipal Auction Rate Securities and municipal Variable Rate Demand Obligations.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In January 2009, the MSRB implemented an electronic system to collect and disseminate information about securities bearing interest at short-term rates and making such information and documents publicly available through a dissemination service (“SHORT System”). In May 2011, MSRB enhanced the SHORT System to add documents to the information collected and disseminated. Information and documents collected by the SHORT System are made available for free on the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) Web site pursuant to the EMMA short-term obligation rate transparency service.
The SHORT Historical Data Product would be made available to purchasers in electronic format using a physical medium (such as an optical disc, flash memory card or external hard drive),
The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that MSRB's rules shall:
The MSRB has also adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the MSRB shall:
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change would establish a subscription service that would make information collected by the SHORT System available to market participants as an
The MSRB 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 Exchange Act since it will apply equally to all persons who choose to purchase
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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 (the “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB has filed with the SEC a proposed rule change to establish a subscription containing historical documents and data obtained from submissions to the MSRB Electronic Municipal Market Access System (EMMA®).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in
In June 2009, the MSRB implemented an electronic system for free public access to primary market disclosure documents and related information for the municipal securities market through EMMA (the “Primary Market Disclosure Service”).
The Primary Market Disclosure Historical Product and the Continuing Disclosure Historical Product would be made available to purchasers in electronic format using a physical medium (such as an optical disc, flash memory card or external hard drive),
The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that MSRB's rules shall:
The MSRB has also adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the MSRB shall:
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change would establish a subscription service that would make information collected by EMMA's Primary Market Disclosure Service and the Continuing Disclosure Service available to market participants through an additional avenue. Broad access to the information collected by EMMA, in addition to the public access through the EMMA Web portal, should further assist in preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by improving the opportunity for public investors to access material information about primary market disclosure information and continuing disclosure information. The proposed rule change also provides for commercially reasonable fees to
The MSRB 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 Exchange Act since it will apply equally to all persons who choose to purchase
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to make an amendment regarding the administrative fee related to the marketing fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
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
In SR-CBOE-2007-95, the Exchange imposed an administrative fee of 0.45% of the Exchange's marketing fee in order to offset the costs of administering the marketing fee program and also to provide funds to an association of members (now Trading Permit Holders) (the “Association”)
In recent months, the amounts collected for the marketing fee have dropped, and as a result, the amount collected through the administrative fee has dropped as well. As such, the amount of the administrative fee allocated to the Association has also dropped, to a level below which the Association requires to operate effectively. At current collection levels for the administrative fee, the Association requires greater than approximately 60% of the administrative fee in order to continue to operate effectively. The Exchange therefore proposes to revise its previous statement that the Exchange intends to “allocate each month approximately 40% of the funds collected through the administrative fee to CBOE to offset CBOE's overall costs in administering the (marketing fee) program” and allocate the remainder (approximately 60%) to the Association. Instead, the Exchange hereby proposes to allocate to the Association the amount of the funds collected through the administrative fee that is necessary to effectively operate the Association (which may, in a given month, include all of the funds collected through the administrative fee), and allocate the remainder of the funds collected through the administrative fee to offset CBOE's overall costs in administering the marketing fee program. The proposed possible re-allocations considered in this proposal will of course not affect the Exchange's ability to continue to fund its regulatory services or engage in its self-regulatory responsibilities.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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”)
ICC proposes rule amendments that are intended to modify the terms of each of the various CDS Contracts cleared by ICC (CDX.NA Untranched Contracts, Standard North American Corporate (“SNAC”) Single Name Contracts and Standard Emerging Sovereign (“SES”) Single Name Contracts) to make the Initial Payment
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
As noted above, the proposed rule changes amend the timing of Initial Payments on a cleared CDS Contract. The Initial Payment under a CDS Contract is established at the time the contract is executed and may be payable from either the protection buyer to the protection seller or vice versa. Under the current ICC Rules (by way of the incorporated ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions), and consistent with practice in the market for uncleared credit default swaps, the Initial Payment is required to be made on the third business day following the trade date (the execution date). ICC proposes to add the definition of Initial Payment Date to its Clearing Rules to provide instead that the Initial Payment is to be made on the first business day following the trade date (or, if the transaction is accepted for clearing after the trade date, the initial payment is to be made on the first business day following the date of acceptance for clearing). After consultation with the Buy-side, ICC believes that this change from “T+3” settlement to “T+1” settlement for the Initial Payment will facilitate customer-related clearing. In addition, this change will improve margin efficiency (as margin requirements will no longer need to take into account the additional risk from a T+3 as opposed to a T+1 settlement rule).
The other proposed changes in the ICC Rules reflect updates to cross-references and defined terms and similar drafting clarifications, and do not affect the substance of the ICC Rules or cleared products.
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2012-02 and should be submitted on or before April 2, 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 proposes to [sic] amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to add fees for Reserve Floor Market Maker Amex Trading Permits (“Reserve ATPs”). 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 amend the Fee Schedule to add fees for Reserve ATPs.
Under the current Fee Schedule, an ATP Holder
To provide an option to Market Maker firms to address the short-term absence of an employee in a more economical way, the Exchange recently added NYSE Amex Options Rule 902NY(j) to create a Reserve ATP under which an ATP Holder would be permitted to have a qualified MMAT employee cover for the absent Floor Market Maker under the firm's ATP, effectively empowering the individual acting as a qualified MMAT to act as a Floor Market Maker in lieu of the absent individual until such time as he or she returns.
The fee for a Reserve ATP will be $175 per month. The fee will be assessed to an ATP Holder that notifies the Exchange that it wishes to obtain a Reserve ATP, such that MMATs in its employ will be eligible to be named to the ATP to act as a Floor Market Maker to cover for another Floor Market Maker who is otherwise unable to be at work that day. The fee change will be implemented on March 1, 2012.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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.
Rule 17g-5(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) prohibits a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”) from issuing or maintaining a credit rating solicited by a person that, in the most recently ended fiscal year, provided the NRSRO with net revenue equaling or exceeding 10% of the total net revenue of the NRSRO for the fiscal year. In adopting this rule, the Commission stated that such a person would be in a position to exercise substantial influence on the NRSRO, which in turn would make it difficult for the NRSRO to remain impartial.
Morningstar Credit Ratings, LLC (“Morningstar”), formerly known as Realpoint LLC (“Realpoint”), is a credit rating agency registered with the Commission as an NRSRO under Section 15E of the Exchange Act for the classes of credit ratings described in clauses (i) through (v) of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act. Morningstar traditionally has operated mainly under the “subscriber-paid” business model, in which the NRSRO derives its revenue from restricting access to its ratings to paid subscribers. After Morningstar acquired Realpoint in the spring of 2010, Morningstar began to expand the scope of its business and initiated an issuer-paid ratings service for initial ratings on commercial mortgage-backed securities. In connection with this expansion, Morningstar has requested a temporary and limited exemption from Rule 17g-5(c)(1) on the grounds that the restrictions imposed by Rule 17g-5(c)(1) would pose a substantial constraint on the firm's ability to compete effectively with large rating agencies offering comparable ratings services. Specifically, Morningstar argues that because the fees typically associated with issuer-paid engagements tend to be relatively high when compared to the fees associated with its existing subscriber-based business, in the early stages of its expansion the fees associated with a single issuer-paid engagement have exceeded ten percent of its total net revenue for the fiscal year. Accordingly, Morningstar has requested that the Commission grant it an exemption from Rule 17g-5(c)(1) for any revenues derived from non-subscription based business during calendar years 2012 and 2013, which are the end of Morningstar's 2011 and 2012 fiscal years, respectively.
The Commission, when adopting Rule 17g-5(c)(1), noted that it intended to monitor how the prohibition operates in practice, particularly with respect to asset-backed securities, and whether exemptions may be appropriate.
The Commission believes that a temporary, limited and conditional exemption allowing Morningstar to expand in the market for rating structured finance products on an issuer-paid basis is consistent with the Commission's goal of improving ratings quality for the protection of investors and in the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating industry. In order to maintain this exemption, Morningstar will be required to publicly disclose in Exhibit 6 to Form NRSRO, as applicable, that the firm received more than 10% of its net revenue in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 from a client or clients that paid it to rate asset-backed securities. This disclosure is designed to alert users of credit ratings to the existence of this specific conflict and is consistent with exemptive relief the Commission has previously granted to Realpoint, LACE and Kroll. In addition to Morningstar's existing obligations as an NRSRO to maintain policies, procedures, and internal controls, by the terms of this order, Morningstar will also be required to maintain policies, procedures, and internal controls specifically designed to address the conflict created by exceeding the 10% threshold. Furthermore, the exemption would also require that revenue from a single client does not exceed 25% of Morningstar's total net revenue for either fiscal year 2011 or 2012.
Section 15E(p) of the Exchange Act, as added by Section 932(a)(8) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, requires Commission staff to conduct an examination of each NRSRO at least annually. As part of this annual examination regimen for NRSROs, Commission staff will closely review Morningstar's activities with respect to managing this conflict and meeting the conditions set forth below and will consider whether to recommend that the Commission take additional action, including administrative or other action.
The Commission therefore finds that a temporary, limited and conditional exemption allowing Morningstar to expand in the market for rating structured finance products on an issuer-paid basis is consistent with the Commission's goal, as established by the Rating Agency Act, of improving ratings quality by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating industry, and is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors, subject to Morningstar's making public disclosure of the conflict created by exceeding the 10% threshold; its maintenance of policies, procedures and internal controls to address that conflict; and that revenue from a single client does not exceed 25% of Morningstar's total net revenue for either the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 or the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
By the Commission.
There will be a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee April 24-27, 2012, at the Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC. Portions of this
During the closed portions of the meeting, the Committee will review the proposal to extend the
An open session to receive oral public comment on these two proposals will be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 2:30 p.m. EDT.
Also during the closed portions of the meeting, the Committee will continue its review of a new cultural property request from the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria seeking import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material. Please see the link to the Public Summary of this request at
The Committee's responsibilities are carried out in accordance with provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601
If you wish to attend the open session on April 24, 2012, you should notify the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State at (202) 632-6301 no later than 5 p.m. (EDT) April 3, 2012, to arrange for admission. Seating is limited. When calling, please specify if you have special accommodation needs. The open session will be held at 2200 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20037. Please plan to arrive 15 minutes before the beginning of the open session.
If you wish to make an oral presentation at the open session, you must request to be scheduled and must submit a written text of your oral comments, ensuring that it is received no later than April 3, 2012, 11:59 p.m. (EDT), via the eRulemaking Portal (see below), to allow time for distribution to Committee members prior to the meeting. Oral comments will be limited to allow time for questions from members of the Committee. All oral and written comments must relate specifically to the determinations under Section 303(a)(1) (19 U.S.C. 2602) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, pursuant to which the Committee must make findings. This statute can be found at the Web site noted above.
If you do not wish to make oral comment, but still wish to make your views known, you may send written comments for the Committee to consider. Again, your comments must relate specifically to the determinations under Section 303(a)(1) (19 U.S.C. 2602) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, pursuant to which the Committee must make findings. Submit all written materials electronically through the eRulemaking Portal (see below), ensuring that they are received no later than April 3, 2012, 11:59 p.m. (EDT). Our adoption of this procedure facilitates public participation, implements Section 206 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2915, and supports the Department of State's “Greening Diplomacy” initiative which aims to reduce the State Department's environmental footprint and reduce costs.
As a general reminder comments submitted by fax or by email are not accepted. In the past, twenty copies of texts over five pages in length were requested. Please note that this is no longer necessary; all comments, other than confidential comments, should now be submitted via the eRulemaking Portal only. Please submit comments only one time.
•
•
Notice of Proposal to Extend the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to Approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century.
The Government of the Republic of Mali has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to Approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Agreement is hereby proposed.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested.
A copy of the Agreement, the Designated List of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site:
Notice of Proposal to Extend the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala.
The Government of the Republic of Guatemala has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala (MOU).
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this MOU is hereby proposed.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested.
A copy of the MOU, the Designated List of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. DOT.
Notice to Manufacturers of Alternative Fuel Vans.
Projects funded under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) must meet the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 50101, Buy American Preferences. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering issuing waivers to foreign manufacturers of alternative fuel vans. This notice requests information from manufacturers of alternative fuel vans meeting Vehicle 1 Category requirements established in the Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program (VALE) to determine whether a waiver to the Buy American Preferences should be issued.
Mr. Daniel Favarulo, Airports Financial Assistance, APP 520, Room 619, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-8826.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) manages a federal grant program for airports called the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). AIP grant recipients must follow 49 U.S.C. 50101, Buy American Preferences. Under 49 U.S.C. 50101(b)(3), the Secretary of Transportation may waive the Buy American Preference requirement if the goods are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality.
The purpose of this notice is to request foreign as well as domestic manufacturers of alternative fuel vans to advise the FAA if they manufacture vans meeting Vehicle Category 1 requirements under the FAA's Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program (VALE). The detailed instructions for submitting the qualifications statement, including forms, may be found on the FAA Web site at:
After review, the FAA may issue a nationwide waiver to Buy American Preferences for foreign manufacturers or United States manufacturers that do not meet the Buy American Preference requirements. Waivers will not be issued for manufacturers that do not fully meet the technical requirements. This “nationwide waiver” allows equipment to be used on airport projects without having to receive separate project waivers. Having a nationwide waiver allows projects to start quickly
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of meeting RTCA Special Committee 217, Joint with EUROCAE Working Group—44, Terrain and Airport Mapping Databases.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Eleventh meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217, Joint with EUROCAE Working Group—44, Terrain and Airport Mapping Databases.
The meeting will be held April 2-5, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at SESAR A6 Brussels Office, Avenue de Kortenberg 100, Brussells, Belgium. Contact information, John Kasten, email:
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 217. The agenda will include the following:
• Chairmen's remarks and introductions
• Housekeeping
• Approve minutes from previous meeting
• Review and approve meeting agenda
• Schedule for this week
• PMC Meeting, March 21, 2012
• March PMC Materials from March 21st Meeting Will Be Provided
• Working Group Reports (Activity Status)
• Working Group Leads are to report on activities that have occurred since the September meeting.
• For Working Groups and Leads, See Last Page
• Full Committee Working Group ASRN V&V Document (DO-xxx)
• Terms of Reference (ToR) for SC-217/WG-44 include the preparation of a new RTCA Document on the Verification and Validation of Airport Surface Routing Networks.
• Discuss progress made since the Phoenix Meeting and review any action items
• Terrain and Obstacle Working Group Report
• Continue working towards document publication.
• High level committee review of items from work programs that have been finalized and have or will be provided for document(s) update within the current schedule.
• Finalize the draft for release to the FRAC process.
• Other Working Group Reports
• Working Group Leads presentations on work in progress with Committee Participation
• Continue to prioritize in terms of “next document release or later”.
• Leadership Report on the status of ToR updates.
• Guidance Material Working Group
• Determine the future of the Efforts of This Working Group.
• Terrain and Obstacle Working Group Session
• Working Group Lead will provide full committee assistance on outstanding issues
Discussion the differences between AIXM and the Modeling Effort for Terrain and Obstacles within the Committee
Decided on a method for addressing the use of the term “obstacle” in DO-276 and “vertical structure” in DO-272.
Determine if and how to re-write Appendix E.
Review work on Temporality.
ASRN V&V Full Committee Working Group
• Co-Chairs will present continuation of the drafting work discussed in Phoenix.
• Action Item results completed
• Working Group Road Map Review
• The existing Road Map will be addressed within the appropriate Working Group.
• Action Item Review
• New items from December 2011 Meeting
• Closing Plenary Session Joint RTCA SC-217/EUROCAE WG-44
• Assignment/Review of Future Work
• Other Business
• Date and Place of Next Meeting
• 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), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In January 2012, there were four applications approved. This notice also includes information on two other applications, one approved in June 2011 and one approved in December 2011, inadvertently left off the June 2011 and December 2011 notices, respectively. Additionally, two approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
Non-scheduled/on-demand operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
Diane Morse, Detroit Airports District Office, (734) 229-2929.
Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs:
Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
David Anderson, Bismarck Airports District Office, (701) 323-7385.
No change from previous decision.
Samuel Iskander, Western Pacific Region Airports Division, (310) 725-3623.
Daniel Millenacker, Minneapolis Airports District Office, (612) 253-4635.
Diane Morse, Detroit Airports District Office, (734) 229-2929.
Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District Office, (425) 227-1662.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a limited scope supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed design change to an interstate highway improvement project in western Kittitas County, Washington.
Liana Liu, Area Engineer, South Central Region, Federal Highway Administration, 711 South Capital Way, Suite 501, Olympia, WA 98501-0943, telephone: (360) 753-9553; or Jason Smith, Environmental Manager, South Central Region, Washington State Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 12560, Yakima, WA 98909, telephone: (509) 577-1750.
FHWA, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), prepared a Draft EIS (FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-D approved May 23, 2005) and Final EIS (FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-F approved July 31, 2008) for proposed improvements to a 15 mile portion of Interstate 90 (I-90) immediately east of Snoqualmie Pass in the Cascade Mountains, from Hyak at Milepost 55.1 (MP 55.1) to Easton Hill at MP 70.3. Consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) and Bureau of Reclamation (Department of Interior) were cooperating agencies in preparing the EISs. Following the Record of Decision by FHWA and the cooperating agencies, WSDOT designed a series of construction projects which start at Hyak and proceed eastward.
The contractor selected to construct the portion of the project from MP 57.34 to MP 60.23 along Keechelus Lake proposes a design change that meets the purpose and need for the highway improvements while reducing maintenance and operation costs. FHWA and WSDOT re-evaluated the NEPA analysis and documents for the I-90 improvements and determined that a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) is needed for this proposed change. The cooperating
The scope of the SEIS is limited to the social, economic, and environmental effects of constructing and operating a bridge instead of a snowshed at MP 58.15 to meet avalanche protection and control needs in an area where I-90 currently experiences road closures in winter for avalanche control. Since issues and concerns related to the I-90 improvements are well known from the extensive public involvement previously conducted as part of the original Draft and Final EIS, formal scoping will not be conducted.
The proposed design change and associated SEIS will be incorporated into the ongoing series of communications and meetings that keep agencies, tribes, organizations, and individuals informed on the I-90 improvements. Written and verbal comments on the Draft SEIS will be taken by mail, on the project Web site, and at hearings. Public notice will be given on the time and place of the future open houses.
Questions concerning this proposed design change and the SEIS should be directed to both Liana Liu (FHWA) and Jason Smith (WSDOT) at the addresses or phone numbers provided above.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of funding availability for FTA Alternatives Analysis Program: Solicitation of Project Proposals.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the availability of Section 5339 Alternatives Analysis program discretionary funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. FTA will distribute these funds in accordance with the mission of this program, consistent with the eligibility requirements of this program, and in support of the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) livability efforts.
The Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011 (Temporary Authorization, 2012), Public Law 112-30, continues the authorization of the Federal transit programs of the U.S. DOT through March 31, 2012. Subject to action by Congress, FTA will fund the Alternatives Analysis program with approximately $25 million of unallocated Section 5339 funds made available by the Temporary Authorization.
This notice solicits proposals to compete for FY 2012 funding under the aforementioned program and livability initiative. Contingent on subsequent appropriations by Congress, FTA may also award FY 2013 funds to proposals submitted pursuant to this notice.
This notice includes priorities established by FTA for these discretionary funds, the criteria FTA will use to identify meritorious projects for funding, and describes how to apply for funding. This announcement is available on the FTA Web site at:
Complete proposals must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 19, 2012. All proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office found at
Section 5339(a) of Title 49, United States Code authorizes the Secretary to make awards for FTA's Alternatives Analysis program and states:
The Secretary may award grants to States, authorities of the States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governmental authorities to develop alternatives analyses as defined by section 5309(a)(1).
Section 5309(a)(1) defines “alternatives analysis” as:
A study conducted as part of the transportation planning process required under sections 5303 and 5304, which includes—
(A) An assessment of a wide range of public transportation alternatives designed to address a transportation problem in a corridor or subarea;
(B) Sufficient information to enable the Secretary to make the findings of project justification and local financial commitment required under this section;
(C) The selection of a locally preferred alternative; and
(D) The adoption of the locally preferred alternative as part of the long-range transportation plan required under section 5303.
Maintaining transit assets in a state of good repair, fostering livable communities and promoting sustainable development, and improving our Nation's environment through investments in clean energy resources, have been key strategic goals of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and FTA. Studies funded as a result of this notice will further the Department's livability efforts by supporting the study of tangible livability improvements within the existing Alternatives Analysis program while demonstrating the feasibility and value of such improvements.
FTA has long fostered livable communities and sustainable development through its various transit
On June 16, 2009, U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a new partnership to help American families in all communities—rural, suburban and urban—gain better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs. DOT, HUD, and EPA created this high-level interagency partnership to better coordinate federal transportation, environmental protection, and housing investments.
The Alternatives Analysis program will invest in studies that fulfill the following six livability principles that serve as the foundation for the DOT-HUD-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
As defined in 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(1), an alternatives analysis is a study conducted as part of the transportation planning process required under Sections 5303 and 5304 which includes: (1) An assessment of a wide range of public transportation alternatives designed to address a transportation problem in a corridor or subarea; (2) the development of sufficient information to enable the Secretary to make the findings of project justification and local financial commitment required under Section 5309; (3) the selection of a locally preferred alternative; and (4) the adoption of the locally preferred alternative as part of the long-range transportation plan required under Section 5303.
The funds available through this notice includes assistance to potential sponsors of New Starts and Small Starts projects in the evaluation of all reasonable transportation alternatives and general alignment options to address transportation needs in a defined travel corridor. Information about FTA's New Starts and Small Starts program can be found on FTA's web site at
FTA advises potential proposers that current provisions of the New Starts and Small Starts program are subject to change. On January 25, 2012, FTA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes changes in the measurement of the existing statutory New Starts and Small Starts project evaluation criteria. Additionally, FTA's current program authorizations expire on March 31, 2012, and any new authorizing legislation may prescribe modifications to FTA's programs. However, the effective dates of a final rule and any new authorizing legislation are uncertain, and the contents of either are subject to change from current proposals. Moreover, changes to the Federal process will not remove the need for sponsors of major transit capital projects to assess costs and benefits of alternative project modes and alignments. FTA therefore encourages potential sponsors of New Starts and Small Starts projects to maintain their focus on conducting a technically sound analysis of alternatives that evaluate solutions to transportation problems and facilitate informed decision-making.
Section 5339 authorizes FTA to award grants to States, authorities of the States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governmental authorities to develop alternatives analyses as defined by Section 5309(a)(1).
FTA will award available discretionary funds to eligible proposers to conduct a new alternatives analysis or to support additional technical tasks in an on-going alternatives analysis that will improve and expand the information available to decision-makers considering major transit improvements. FTA will consider proposals for all areas of technical work that can better develop information about the costs and benefits of potential major transit improvements. These funds are not available for systems planning work that leads to the selection of a particular corridor for conducting an alternatives analysis, or for work performed after the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) has been selected. There is no blanket pre-award authority for studies to be funded under this notice before FTA's public announcement of the selections.
The total federal share (Section 5339 funds plus other federal funds) of the cost of studies or technical tasks selected for funding may not exceed 80 percent. Section 5339 requests may range between $50,000 and $2 million.
The submitted proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria. Each proposer is encouraged to demonstrate the responsiveness of their proposal to any and all of the selection criteria with the most relevant information that the proposer can provide, regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested, or identified, in this notice. FTA will assess the extent to which the proposal addresses each of the three criteria below.
Proposers must demonstrate a need for these funds by identifying a transportation problem in the study corridor that warrants an evaluation of major transit improvements, including alternatives that may be suitable for New Starts or Small Starts funding. For both new and ongoing alternatives analyses, higher scores will be assigned to studies in areas that have been prioritized in the metropolitan planning process as having a significant transportation need, particularly through inclusion of conceptual corridor improvements in fiscally constrained long-range transportation plans. Proposals for both new and ongoing studies must show there is a need for these funds to support a meaningful future analysis of alternative modes and alignments, as opposed to efforts aimed at justifying largely predefined projects.
Proposers must describe the proposed study's role in broader efforts to advance the six DOT-HUD-EPA Livability Principles. Higher scores will be assigned to proposals that are linked to a history of concrete actions as well as ongoing planning efforts to enhance livability.
Proposers must outline a study approach that is likely to provide decision-makers with actionable information about the costs and benefits of investment alternatives while meaningfully involving project stakeholders. Higher scores will be assigned to proposals that demonstrate successful outcomes from prior alternatives analyses, a robust public involvement plan, evidence of partnerships with related organizations (such as housing- and environment-focused public agencies), and demonstration of technical capacity to complete all work.
In addition to other FTA staff that may review the proposals, a technical evaluation committee will review proposals based on the evaluation criteria. Members of the technical evaluation committee and other involved FTA staff reserve the right to screen the proposals and seek clarification from any proposer about any statement in the proposal that FTA finds ambiguous and/or request additional documentation to be considered during the evaluation process to clarify information contained within the proposal. After consideration of the findings of the technical evaluation committee, the FTA Administrator will determine the final selection and amount of funding for each study. Geographic diversity and other discretionary awards may be considered in FTA's award decisions. FTA expects to announce the selected studies and notify successful proposers in August 2012.
Proposals must be submitted electronically through
A complete proposal submission will consist of at least three files: (1) The SF 424 Mandatory form (downloaded from GRANTS.GOV); (2) the supplemental form found on the FTA Alternatives Analysis program Web site:
Within 24-48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the proposer should receive three email messages from GRANTS.GOV: (1) Confirmation of successful transmission to GRANTS.GOV, (2) confirmation of successful validation by GRANTS.GOV, and (3) confirmation of successful validation by FTA. If confirmations of successful validation are not received and a notice of failed validation or incomplete materials is received, the proposer must address the reason for the failed validation or incomplete materials and resubmit before the submission deadline. If making a resubmission for any reason, include all original attachments regardless of which attachments were updated and check the box on the supplemental form indicating this is a resubmission.
Complete instructions on the application process can be found at
Information such as applicant name, federal amount requested, match amount, description of areas served, etc. are requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF 424 Mandatory form and supplemental “Applicant and Proposal Profile” form. All fields are required unless stated otherwise on the forms. Use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms. Ensure that the “Federal” amount identified on the SF 424 Mandatory form is the same as the “5339 Request” total amount calculated on the supplemental form. For up-to-date guidance on the completion of all forms, refer to FTA's Alternatives Analysis Web site:
This section contains basic proposer identification information: organization legal name, FTA Recipient ID number, and transit services provided.
This section contains background information about the project (study): title, proposed scope of work, map of the study corridor (map attachment to SF 424 application is required), descriptions of the corridor, project budget allocated into major tasks, including the source of local match, and time-line for beginning and ending the major tasks.
This section contains information for direct use in the evaluation process: demonstrated need, advancing livability, and study approach and outcomes.
Complete proposals for the Alternatives Analysis program must be submitted electronically through GRANTS.GOV by 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 19, 2012. Proposers are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the GRANTS.GOV site well in advance of the submission deadline. Registration is a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before a proposal can be submitted. Registered proposers may still be required to take steps to keep their registration up to date before submissions can be made successfully: (1) registration in the Central Contractor Repository (CCR) is renewed annually and (2) persons making submissions on behalf of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) must be authorized in GRANTS.GOV by the AOR to make submissions.
At the time the project (study) selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects awarded to current grantees. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement.
If selected, applicants will apply for a grant through TEAM and adhere to the customary FTA grant requirements of the Section 5339 Alternatives Analysis program, including those of FTA Circular 9300.1B, Circular 5010.1D, and the labor protections of 49 U.S.C. Section 5333(b). These grants will be administered and managed by the FTA regional offices. The Alternatives Analysis must be documented in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) of the MPO for the area before these funds can be used. All discretionary grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the Congressional Notification and release process. Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any activity supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file.
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone reports in TEAM on a quarterly basis for all projects. Documentation is required for payment. In addition, project sponsors receiving grants for innovative approaches may be required to report on the performance of these approaches.
Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office at
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Correction to notice of the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council Meeting on March 29, 2012, to alter the start time from 1 p.m. EST to 10 a.m. EDT and to adjust other times from Eastern Standard Time to Eastern Daylight Time.
NHTSA is issuing a correction to a published notice of a meeting of the NEMSAC to be held in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area on March 28-30, 2012. This notice announces the correct date, time, and location of the meeting, which will be open to the public. The purpose of NEMSAC is to provide a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services (EMS) representatives and consumers to provide advice and recommendations regarding EMS to DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The NEMSAC meeting will take place over two and a half days and be held on
• Wednesday March 28, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT;
• Thursday March 29, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT; and
• Friday March 30, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT.
NEMSAC committees will meet from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. EDT on March 29, 2012. Public comment periods will be scheduled throughout the day of March 28, 2012, as well as from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT on March 29, 2012.
The meeting will be held on the 8th floor of the FHI 360 Conference Center at 1825 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20009.
Drew Dawson, Director, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Emergency Medical Services, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590, telephone number (202) 366-9966; email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). NEMSAC will meet on March 28-30,
The tentative agenda includes the following:
Public comment periods will be scheduled throughout the day of March 28, 2012, as well as from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT on March 29, 2012. Written comments or requests to make oral presentations must be received by March 21, 2012, by emailing
Minutes of the NEMSAC Meeting will be available to the public online through
On February 21, 2012, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a 5.95-mile rail line between milepost 20.05 in Shenandoah and milepost 26.0 in Farragut, in Page and Fremont Counties, Iowa.
According to BNSF, the line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in BNSF's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by June 8, 2012.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than April 2, 2012. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $250 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 6 (Sub-No. 479X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Karl Morell, Suite 225, 655 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Replies to the petition are due on or before April 2, 2012.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR pt. 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its presentation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed topics to be discussed for a meeting of the Department of the Treasury's Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance. The meeting is open the public. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The FACI will convene its first meeting on Friday,
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012, commencing at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance meeting will be held in the Cash Room, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220. The meeting will be open to the public. Because the meeting will be held in a secured facility, members of the public who plan to attend the meeting must contact the Federal Insurance Office (Office), at (202) 622-6910, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 26, 2012, to inform the Office of the desire to attend the meeting and to provide the information required to enter the building.
James P. Brown, Senior Policy Advisor to the Federal Insurance Office, Department of the Treasury, Room 2100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-6910 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II, 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150.
• Use the Department of the Treasury's Internet designated official by emailing
• Send paper statements in triplicate to the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance, Room 2100, Department of the Treasury, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.
The Department of the Treasury will post all statements on its Web site
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of an entity identified on March 5, 2012, as an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011, “Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria.”
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel.: 202/622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On August 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011, “Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria,” (“the Order”) pursuant to, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-06). In the Order, the President took additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004.
Section 1 of the Order blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the Government of Syria, which is defined to include its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities.
On March 5, 2012, the Director of OFAC identified, pursuant to Section 1 of the Order, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked. The listing for this entity is below.
Entity:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of one individual and two entities whose property and interests in property have
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the one individual and two entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b)(2) and (3) of the Kingpin Act is effective on March 6, 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 directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On March 6, 2012, the Director of OFAC designated the following individual and two entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. ZAMBADA GARCIA, Jesus Reynaldo (a.k.a. “EL REY ZAMBADA”), DOB 13 Aug 1961; POB Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; citizen Mexico; nationality Mexico; C.U.R.P. ZAGJ610813HSLMRS05 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK]
2. ZARKA DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V., Miguel Hidalgo No. 348 Pte., Colonia Centro, Donato Guerra y Carrasco, Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 73894-1 (Mexico); R.F.C. ZME-040520-VD7 (Mexico) [SDNTK]
3. ZARKA DE OCCIDENTE S.A. DE C.V., Calle Jose Diego Valadez Rios No. 1676, Colonia Proyecto Urbano Tres Rios, Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 72191-1 (Mexico) [SDNTK]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 18 individuals whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers.”
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) of the 18 individuals identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on March 6, 2012.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220. Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The foreign persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to the Order.
On March 6, 2012, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the 18 individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
1. ALVAREZ DE LA TORRE, Mario Andres, c/o AMERICANA DE COSMETICOS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o COSMEPOP, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 6 Mar 1972; Cedula No. 232594 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
2. CARRERO BURBANO, Emma Alexandra, c/o DROMARCA Y CIA. S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o FARMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 52362326 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
3. CASQUETE VARGAS, Orlando, c/o ALFA PHARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS GENERICOS VETERINARIOS, Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR, Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTA PHARMA DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 7 Jan 1957; Cedula No. 19270159 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
4. LEON REYES, German, c/o COLPHAR S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 79273729 (Colombia); Passport 79273729 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
5. LOPEZ SANDOVAL, Fernando Alberto, c/o DISTRIBUIDORA SANAR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o DISTRIEXPORT S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o FARMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; c/o INCOMMERCE S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 12 Oct 1975; Cedula No. 94450287 (Colombia); Passport 94450287 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
6. MANJARRES FORERO, Baudelino, c/o CAJA SOLIDARIA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o CREDISOL, Bogota, Colombia; c/o FOMENTAMOS, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 24 May 1949; Cedula No. 19073383 (Colombia); Passport 19073383 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
7. MEDINA FAJARDO, Yovany (a.k.a. MEDINA FAJARDO, Yovani), c/o CODISA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o FARMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 21 Nov 1969; Cedula No. 11317493 (Colombia); Passport 11317493 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
8. MOSCOSO MONTES, Nelly Fabiola, c/o ADMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; c/o CODISA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o FARMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 5 May 1964; Cedula No. 51740771 (Colombia); Passport 51740771 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
9. NINO VALBUENA, Luis German, c/o COLPHAR S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 19423011 (Colombia); Passport 19423011 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
10. OSPINA LIZALDA, Marina, c/o ADMINISTRADORA DE SERVICIOS VARIOS CALIMA S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o CHAMARTIN S.A., Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 31838118 (Colombia); Passport 31838118 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
11. PAREDES GONZALEZ, Nohora, c/o COPSERVIR LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 6 Aug 1963; Cedula No. 36376456 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
12. PUERTO, Luis Alfredo, c/o ADMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; c/o CODISA, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 17 Dec 1955; Cedula No. 79113154 (Colombia); Passport 79113154 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
13. RAMOS BONILLA, Blanca Clemencia, c/o LABORATORIOS BLAIMAR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o COSMEPOP, Bogota, Colombia; c/o LATINA DE COSMETICOS Y DISTRIBUCIONES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 19 Mar 1959; Cedula No. 41767311 (Colombia); Passport 41767311 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
14. RICUARTE FLOREZ, Gilma Leonor, c/o LABORATORIOS GENERICOS VETERINARIOS, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 20 Apr 1961; Cedula No. 51640309 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
15. SANCHEZ DE VALENCIA, Dora Gladys, c/o INMOBILIARIA U.M.V. S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 7 AUG 1955; Cedula No. 31273248 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
16. SALAZAR, Jose Leonel, c/o INMOBILIARIA U.M.V. S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o COMERCIALIZADORA INTERNACIONAL VALLE DE ORO S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 14 Mar 1956; Cedula No. 10529253 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
17. SOLAQUE SANCHEZ, Alfredo Alfonso, c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DISTRIBUIDORA DE DROGAS CONDOR LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o ALFA PHARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTACOOP LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTA PHARMA DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS BLAIMAR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 18 Dec 1962; Cedula No. 79261845 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
18. VARGAS VASQUEZ, Jorge Alberto, c/o AMERICANA DE COSMETICOS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DISTRIEXPORT S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 30 Jun 1960; Cedula No. 19401630 (Colombia); Passport 19401630 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing additions to the identifying information for an individual who was previously designated pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The additions made by the Director of OFAC to the identifying information for an individual who was previously designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act are effective on March 6, 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
On March 6, 2012, the Director of OFAC made additions to the identifying information for the following individual who was previously designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act:
CIFUENTES VILLA, Jorge Milton (a.k.a. LOPEZ SALAZAR, Elkin de Jesus), c/o BIO FORESTAL S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o C.I. DISTRIBUIDORA DE SERVICIOS COMBUSTIBLES Y MINERIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. METALURGIA EXTRACTIVA DE COLOMBIA S.A.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OKCOFFEE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OKCOFFEE INTERNATIONAL S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CUBICAFE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CUBI CAFE CLICK CUBE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico; c/o DESARROLLO MINERO RESPONSABLE C.I. S.A.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DOLPHIN DIVE SCHOOL S.A., Cartagena, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION OKCOFFEE COLOMBIA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION PARA EL BIENESTAR Y EL PORVENIR, Medellin, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION SALVA LA SELVA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o GANADERIA LA SORGUITA S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o GESTORES DEL ECUADOR GESTORUM S.A., Quito, Ecuador; c/o GRUPO MUNDO MARINO, S.A., Panama; c/o HOTELES Y BIENES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o INVERPUNTO DEL VALLE S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES CIFUENTES Y CIA. S. EN C., Medellin, Colombia; c/o LE CLAUDE, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico; c/o LINEA AEREA PUEBLOS AMAZONICOS S.A.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o OPERADORA NUEVA GRANADA, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico; c/o PARQUES TEMATICOS S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o PROMO RAIZ S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o RED MUNDIAL INMOBILIARIA, S.A. DE C.V., Huixquilucan, Estado de Mexico, Mexico; c/o R D I S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Avenida Carrera 9 No. 113-52 Of. 401, Bogota, Colombia; Calle 6 No. 33-29 Apto. 801, Medellin, Colombia; Calle 74 No. 10-33 Apto. 806, Bogota, Colombia; Calle Blas Pascal No. 106, Colonia Los Morales, Delegacion Miguel Hidalgo, Mexico City, Distrito Federal C.P. 11510, Mexico; Calle Eje J No. 999 Pasaje Santa Fe, Departamento No. 301, Colonia Ciudad Santa Fe, Delegacion Alvaro Obregon, Mexico City, Distrito Federal C.P. 01210, Mexico; Camino del Remanso, No. 80 A, Planta Baja, Colonia Lomas Country Club, Huixquilucan, Estado de Mexico C.P. 52779, Mexico; Camino del Remanso No. 80 Interior 2, Colonia Lomas Country Club, Huixquilucan, Estado de Mexico C.P. 52779, Mexico; Carrera 8 No. 10-56 Of. 201, Cali, Colombia; Carrera 68D No. 25-10, Lote 41 E/S Terminal, Bogota, Colombia; Carrera 68D No. 25B-86 Of. 504, Bogota, Colombia; Miguel Schultz No. 127, Colonia San Rafael, Delegacion Cuauhtemoc, Mexico City, Distrito Federal C.P. 06470, Mexico; DOB 13 May 1965; alt. DOB 13 Apr 1968; POB Medellin, Colombia; alt. POB Marinilla, Antioquia, Colombia; C.U.R.P. CIVJ650513HNEFLR06 (Mexico); Cedula No. 7548733 (Colombia); alt. Cedula No. 70163752 (Colombia); alt. Cedula No. 172489729-1 (Ecuador); Matricula Mercantil No 181301-1 Cali (Colombia); alt. Matricula Mercantil No 405885 Bogota (Colombia); Passport AL720622 (Colombia); R.F.C. CIVJ650513LJA (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK]
The listing now appears as follows:
CIFUENTES VILLA, Jorge Milton (a.k.a. LOPEZ SALAZAR, Elkin de Jesus; a.k.a. OSUNA VILLARREAL, Sergio), c/o BIO FORESTAL S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o C.I. DISTRIBUIDORA DE SERVICIOS COMBUSTIBLES Y MINERIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OKCOFFEE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OKCOFFEE INTERNATIONAL S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CUBICAFE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CUBI CAFE CLICK CUBE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico; c/o DOLPHIN DIVE SCHOOL S.A., Cartagena, Colombia; c/o GANADERIA LA SORGUITA S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o GESTORES DEL ECUADOR GESTORUM S.A., Quito, Ecuador; c/o HOTELES Y BIENES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o INVERPUNTO DEL VALLE S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES CIFUENTES Y CIA. S. EN C., Medellin, Colombia; c/o LE CLAUDE, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico; c/o OPERADORA NUEVA GRANADA, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico; c/o PARQUES TEMATICOS S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o PROMO RAIZ S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o RED MUNDIAL INMOBILIARIA, S.A. DE C.V., Huixquilucan, Estado de Mexico, Mexico; Avenida Carrera 9 No. 113-52 Of. 401, Bogota, Colombia; Calle 6 No. 33-29 Apto. 801, Medellin, Colombia; Calle 74 No. 10-33 Apto. 806, Bogota, Colombia; Calle Blas Pascal No. 106, Colonia Los Morales, Delegacion Miguel Hidalgo, Mexico City, Distrito Federal C.P. 11510, Mexico; Calle Eje J No. 999 Pasaje Santa Fe, Departamento No. 301, Colonia Ciudad Santa Fe, Delegacion Alvaro Obregon, Mexico City, Distrito Federal C.P. 01210, Mexico; Camino del Remanso, No. 80 A, Planta Baja, Colonia Lomas Country Club, Huixquilucan, Estado de Mexico C.P. 52779, Mexico; Camino del Remanso No. 80 Interior 2, Colonia Lomas Country Club, Huixquilucan, Estado de Mexico C.P. 52779, Mexico; Carrera 8 No. 10-56 Of. 201, Cali, Colombia; Carrera 68D No. 25-10, Lote 41 E/S Terminal, Bogota, Colombia; Carrera 68D No. 25B-86 Of. 504, Bogota, Colombia; Miguel Schultz No. 127, Colonia San Rafael, Delegacion Cuauhtemoc, Mexico City, Distrito Federal C.P. 06470, Mexico; c/o FUNDACION OKCOFFEE COLOMBIA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION PARA EL BIENESTAR Y EL PORVENIR, Medellin, Colombia; c/o FUNDACION SALVA LA SELVA, Bogota, Colombia; c/o LINEA AEREA PUEBLOS AMAZONICOS S.A.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. METALURGIA EXTRACTIVA DE COLOMBIA S.A.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DESARROLLO MINERO RESPONSABLE C.I. S.A.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o R D I S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GRUPO MUNDO MARINO, S.A., Panama; Paseo de las Gacelas No. 550, Fraccionamiento Ciudad Bugambilias, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 13 May 1965; alt. DOB 13 Apr 1968; alt. DOB 7 Jul 1964; POB Medellin, Colombia; alt. POB Marinilla, Antioquia, Colombia; alt. POB Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico; C.U.R.P. CIVJ650513HNEFLR06 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. OUVS640707HTSSLR07 (Mexico); Cedula No. 7548733 (Colombia); alt. Cedula No. 70163752 (Colombia); alt. Cedula No. 172489729-1 (Ecuador); Matricula Mercantil No 181301-1 Cali (Colombia); alt. Matricula Mercantil No 405885 Bogota (Colombia); Passport AL720622 (Colombia); R.F.C. CIVJ650513LJA (Mexico); alt. R.F.C. OUSV-640707 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing supplemental information for the names of thirteen individuals and one entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
The publishing of updated identification information by the Director of OFAC of the thirteen individuals and one entity in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, is effective on March 2, 2012.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On September 23, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13224 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. The Order imposes economic sanctions on persons who have committed, pose a significant risk of committing, or support acts of terrorism. The President identified in the Annex to the Order, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 individuals and 16 entities as subject to the economic sanctions. The Order was further amended by Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; (3) persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as provided in section 5 of the Order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or determined to be subject to the Order or to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order.
On March 2, 2012 the Director of OFAC supplemented the identification information for thirteen individuals and one entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
The supplemental identification information for the thirteen individuals and one entity is as follows:
1. ABDAOUI, Youssef (a.k.a. ABDAOUI, Youssef Ben Abdul Baki Ben Youcef; a.k.a. “ABDELLAH”; a.k.a. “ABDULLAH”; a.k.a. “ABU ABDULLAH”), Piazza Giovane Italia n.2, Varese, Italy; Number 8/B Via Torino, Cassano Magnago (VA), Italy; DOB 4 Jun 1966; POB Kairouan, Tunisia; nationality Tunisia; Identification Number AO 2879097 (Italy) expires 30 Oct 2012; Passport G025057 issued 23 Jun 1999 expires 5 Feb 2004 (individual) [SDGT]
2. AL-LIBI, Abd al-Muhsin (a.k.a. ABU BAKR, Ibrahim Ali Muhammad; a.k.a. SABRI, Abdel Ilah; a.k.a. TANTOUCHE, Ibrahim Abubaker; a.k.a. TANTOUSH, Ibrahim Ali Abu Bakr; a.k.a. TANTOUSH, Ibrahim Abubaker; a.k.a. “ABD AL-MUHSI”; a.k.a. “ABD AL-RAHMAN”; a.k.a. “ABU ANAS”), Johannesburg, South Africa; DOB 1966; alt. DOB 27 Oct 1969; nationality Libya; Passport 203037 (Libya) (individual) [SDGT]
3. AMDOUNI, Mehrez (a.k.a. AL-AMDOUNI, Mehrez Ben Mahmoud Ben Sassi; a.k.a. AMDOUNI, Mehrez ben Tah; a.k.a. AMDOUNI, Meherez ben Ahdoud ben; a.k.a. FUSCO, Fabio; a.k.a. HAMDOUNI, Meherez; a.k.a. HASSAN, Mohamed; a.k.a. “ABU THALE”); DOB 18 Dec 1969; alt. DOB 25 May 1968; alt. DOB 18 Dec 1968; alt. DOB 14 Jul 1969; POB Tunis, Tunisia; alt. POB Naples, Italy; alt. POB Algeria; nationality Tunisia; Passport G737411 (Tunisia) issued 24 Oct 1990 expires 20 Sep 1997; alt. Passport 0801888 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (individual) [SDGT]
4. KAHIE, Abdullahi Hussein, Bakara Market, Dar Salaam Buildings, Mogadishu, Somalia; 26 Urtegata Street, Oslo 0187, Norway; DOB 22 Sep 1959; POB Mogadishu, Somalia; nationality Norway; National ID No. 22095919778 (Norway); Passport 26941812 (Norway) issued 23 Nov 2008; alt. Passport 27781924 (Norway) issued 11 May 2011 expires 11 May 2020 (individual) [SDGT]
5. ASHRAF, Haji Muhammad (a.k.a. ASHRAF, Haji M.; a.k.a. MANSHA, Muhammad Ashraf; a.k.a. MANSHAH, Muhammad Ashraf; a.k.a. MUNSHA, Muhammad Ashraf); DOB 1955; POB Faisalabad, Pakistan; National ID No. 6110125312507 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 24492025390 (Pakistan); Passport A-374184 (Pakistan); alt. Passport AT0712501 (Pakistan) issued 12 Mar 2008 expires 11 Mar 2013 (individual) [SDGT]
6. BAHAZIQ, Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed (a.k.a. BAHADHIQ, Mahmud; a.k.a. BAHADHIQ, Mahmud Muhammad Ahmad; a.k.a. BAHAZIQ,
7. KHAN, Mohammad Naushad Alam (a.k.a. KHAN, Naushad Aalam; a.k.a. KHAN, Rahat Hasan; a.k.a. KHAN, Muhammad Nowshad Alam; a.k.a. KHAN, Muhammad Nawshad Alam); DOB 10 Aug 1971; alt. DOB Dec 1970; POB Karachi, Pakistan; National ID No. 4200004347195 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 50492460414 (Pakistan); Passport YZ4107191 (Pakistan) issued 15 Apr 2008 expires 14 Apr 2013; alt. Passport Booklet: A6169832 (Pakistan); alt. Passport YZ4107192 (Pakistan) issued 19 Feb 2009 expires 18 Feb 2014; alt. Passport Booklet: A8235074 (Pakistan); Holder of a Pakistan passport; Holder of a Bangladesh passport (individual) [SDGT]
8. LAKHVI, Zaki-ur-Rehman (a.k.a. ARSHAD, Abu Waheed Irshad Ahmad; a.k.a. LAKVI, Zakir Rehman; a.k.a. LAKVI, Zaki Ur-Rehman; a.k.a. REHMAN, Zakir; a.k.a. UR-REHMAN, Zaki; a.k.a. “CHACHAJEE”), Barahkoh, P.O. DO, Tehsil and District Islamabad, Pakistan; Chak No. 18/IL, Rinala Khurd, Tehsil Rinala Khurd, District Okara, Pakistan; DOB 30 Dec 1960; POB Okara, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; National ID No. 61101-9618232-1 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 33960047268 (Pakistan); Passport AC8342321 (Pakistan) issued 22 Aug 2007 expires 20 Aug 2012; alt. Passport Booklet A4827048 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT]
9. MAKKI, Hafiz Abdul Rahman (a.k.a. MAKI, HAFAZ ABDUL RAHMAN; a.k.a. MAKKI, HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN; a.k.a. MAKKI, ABDULRAHMAN; a.k.a. REHMAN, Hafiz Abdul), Muridke, Punjab Province, Pakistan; DOB 10 Dec 1954; alt. DOB 1948; POB Bahawalpur, Punjab Province, Pakistan; National ID No. 6110111883885 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 34454009709 (Pakistan); Passport CG9153881 (Pakistan) issued 2 Nov 2007 expires 31 Oct 2012; alt. Passport Booklet: A5199819 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT]
10. MUJAHID, Mohammed Yahya (a.k.a. AZIZ, Mohammad Yahya; a.k.a. MUJAHID, Muhammad Yahya; a.k.a. MUJAHID, Yahya); DOB 12 Mar 1961; POB Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan; alt. POB Sheikhupura, Pakistan; National ID No. 35404-1577309-9 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 26961341469 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT]
11. RAUF, Hafiz Abdur (a.k.a. RAOUF, Hafiz Abdul; a.k.a. RAUF, Hafiz Abdul), 4 Lake Road, Room No. 7, Choburji, Lahore, Pakistan; Dola Khurd, Lahore, Pakistan; 129 Jinnah Block, Awan Town, Multan Road, Lahore, Pakistan; 33 Street No. 3, Jinnah Colony, Tehsil Kabir Wala, District Khanewal, Pakistan; 5-Chamberlain Road, Lahore, Pakistan; DOB 25 Mar 1973; POB Sialkot, Punjab Province, Pakistan; National ID No. CNIC: 35202-540013-9 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. NIC: 277-93-113495 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 27873113495 (Pakistan); Passport CM1074131 (Pakistan) issued 29 Oct 2008 expires 29 Oct 2013; alt. Passport Booklet: A7523531 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT]
12. SAEED, Muhammad (a.k.a. SAEED, Hafiz Muhammad; a.k.a. SAEED, Hafiz; a.k.a. SAEED, Hafiz Mohammad; a.k.a. SAEED HAFIZ, Muhammad; a.k.a. SAYED, Hafiz Mohammad; a.k.a. SAYEED, Hafez Mohammad; a.k.a. SAYID, Hafiz Mohammad; a.k.a. SYEED, Hafiz Mohammad; a.k.a. “HAFIZ SAHIB”; a.k.a. “TATA JI”), House No. 116 E, Mohalla Johar, Town: Lahore, Tehsil:, Lahore City, Lahore District, Pakistan; DOB 5 Jun 1950; POB Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; National ID No. 3520025509842-7 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 23250460642 (Pakistan); Passport BE5978421 (Pakistan) issued 14 Nov 2007 expires 12 Nov 2012; alt. Passport Booklet A5250088 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT]
13. JIM'ALE, Ahmed Nur Ali (a.k.a. JIMALE, Ahmad Ali; a.k.a. JIMALE, Ahmed Ali; a.k.a. JIMALE, Shaykh Ahmed Nur; a.k.a. JIMALE, Sheikh Ahmed; a.k.a. JIM'ALE, Ahmad Nur Ali; a.k.a. JUMALE, Ahmed Nur; a.k.a. JUMALE, Ahmed Ali; a.k.a. JUMALI, Ahmed Ali), P.O. Box 3312, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Mogadishu, Somalia; Djibouti, Djibouti; DOB 1954; POB Eilbur, Somalia; citizen Somalia; alt. citizen Djibouti; nationality Somalia; Passport A0181988 (Somalia) issued 1 Oct 2001 expires 23 Jan 2011; Additional Djiboutian passport issued in 2010. (individual) [SDGT]
1. AL RASHID TRUST (a.k.a. AL AMEEN TRUST; a.k.a. AL AMIN TRUST; a.k.a. AL AMIN WELFARE TRUST; a.k.a. AL MADINA TRUST; a.k.a. AL RASHEED TRUST; a.k.a. AL-AMEEN TRUST; a.k.a. AL-MADINA TRUST; a.k.a. AL-RASHEED TRUST; a.k.a. AL-RASHID TRUST; a.k.a. MAIMAR TRUST; a.k.a. MAYMAR TRUST; a.k.a. MEYMAR TRUST; a.k.a. MOMAR TRUST), Kitab Ghar, 4 Dar-el-Iftah, Nazimabad, Karachi, Pakistan; Office Dha'rb-i-M'unin, Room no. 3, Third Floor, Moti Plaza, near Liaquat Bagh, Murree Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; Jamia Masjid, Sulaiman Park, Begum Pura, Lahore, Pakistan; Office Dha'rb-i-M'unin, Z.R. Brothers, Katchehry Road, Chowk Yadgaar, Peshawar, Pakistan; Office Dha'rb-i-M'unin, Top Floor, Dr. Dawa Khan Dental Clinic Surgeon, Main Baxar, Mingora, Swat, Pakistan; Office Dha'rb-i-M'unin, opposite Khyber Bank, Abbottabad Road, Mansehra, Pakistan; University Road, Opposite Baitul Mukaram, Gulshan-e Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan; Opposite Jang Press, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan; TE-365, 3rd Floor, Deans Trade Centre, Peshawar Cantt., Pakistan; Operations in Afghanistan: Herat, Jalalabad, Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar Sharif. Also operations in: Kosovo, Chechnya [SDGT]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of 1 individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the 1 individual in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, is effective on March 2, 2012.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On September 23, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13224 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. The Order imposes economic sanctions on persons who have committed, pose a significant risk of committing, or support acts of terrorism. The President identified in the Annex to the Order, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 individuals and 16 entities as subject to the economic sanctions. The Order was further amended by Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; (3) persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as provided in section 5 of the Order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or determined to be subject to the Order or to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order.
On March 2, 2012 the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice and other relevant agencies, designated, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in subsections 1(b), 1(c) or 1(d) of the Order, 1 individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
The listing for this individual on OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons appears as follows:
1. ACHEKZAI, Abdul Samad (a.k.a. SAMAD, Abdul), Balochistan Province, Pakistan; DOB 1970; nationality Afghanistan (individual) [SDGT].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments should be received on or before May 11, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
To obtain additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at (202) 622-3179, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing 2012 pricing for Kennedy Half-Dollar bags and rolls, bronze medals, the First Spouse Bronze Medal Set and the Birth Set.
B. B. Craig, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Public Availability of FY 2011 Service Contract Inventories.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-117), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2011 Service Contract Inventory. The inventory provides information on VA service contract actions over $25,000 made in FY 2011. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, and updated on December 19, 2011, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Marilyn Harris, Director, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Service, in the Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction at (202) 461-6918, or email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving a revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) intended to address the regional haze (RH) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In addition, EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the portion of the Arkansas Interstate Transport SIP submittal that addresses the visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on April 11, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0727. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal e-Rulemaking portal index at
Ms. Dayana Medina, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-7241; fax number 214-665-7263; email address
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” “our,” or “the Agency” is used, we mean the EPA.
The CAA requires that states develop and implement SIPs to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment over a wide geographic area, known as Regional Haze (RH). CAA sections 110(a) and 169A. Arkansas submitted a RH plan to us on September 23, 2008, and August 3, 2010, and submitted supplemental information on September 27, 2011. On October 17, 2011, we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove certain elements of Arkansas's SIP.
In addition to the RH requirements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that the Arkansas SIP ensure that emissions from sources within Arkansas do not interfere with the SIP of any other state under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. This requirement is commonly referred to as the visibility prong of “interstate transport,” which is also called the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. Arkansas submitted a SIP to meet the requirements of interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM
Arkansas submitted Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19, its State RH Rule that addresses Arkansas's RH program, to address the requirements in both its RH SIP and its Interstate Transport SIP. In both the RH SIP and the Interstate Transport SIP, Arkansas adopted BART emission limits for certain sources to meet the requirements of both SIPs as stated in the State RH Rule. Based upon public comment, we are disapproving the portion of the BART compliance provision found in the State's RH Rule, Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19, at Reg. 19.1504 (B), which requires each source subject to BART to install and operate BART no later than six years after the effective date of Arkansas's RH Rule for both the RH SIP and the Interstate Transport SIP. Because of this disapproval, compliance with Arkansas's BART emission limitations is within five years of approval of Arkansas RH SIP by EPA.
For a RH SIP, the process of establishing BART emission limitations can be logically broken down into three steps. First, states identify those sources which meet the definition of “BART eligible source” set forth in 40 CFR 51.301. Second, states determine whether such sources “emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area” (a source which fits this description is “subject to BART”). Third, for each source subject to BART, states then identify the appropriate type and the level of control for reducing emissions by conducting a five-step analysis:
We agree with Arkansas's identification of sources that are BART eligible, with the exception of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which we find to be BART eligible. We also agree with Arkansas's identification of subject to BART sources, with the exception of the 6A and 9A Boilers at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which we find to be subject to BART. In addition, we are approving a number of BART determinations from Arkansas's RH SIP. We are not able to approve the following BART determinations made by Arkansas: the sulfur dioxide (SO
We are approving the remaining sections of the RH SIP submission. This includes certain core elements of the SIP, including Arkansas's (1) Identification of affected Class I areas; (2) determination of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (3) determination of the URP; (4) RPG consultation and LTS consultation; (5) coordination of regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (6) monitoring strategy and other implementation requirements; (7) commitment to submit periodic RH SIP revisions and periodic progress reports describing progress towards the RPGs; (8) commitment to make a determination of the adequacy of the existing SIP at the time a progress report is submitted; (9) coordination with states and FLMs; and (10) the following BART determinations from Arkansas's RH SIP:
• The PM BART determination for the AEP Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1.
• The SO
• The PM BART determinations for both the bituminous and sub-bituminous coal firing scenarios for the Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2.
• The PM BART determination for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1.
Arkansas stated in its April 2, 2008 submittal that it is relying on Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19, also known as the State's RH Rule, to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from Arkansas sources not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) also stated in its April 2, 2008, submittal that it is not possible to assess whether there is any interference with the measures in the applicable SIP for another state designed to protect visibility for the 8-hour ozone and PM
Under the CAA,
We originally provided a 30 day public comment period for this action, which we extended after receiving several requests for an extension on the comment period. We held a 66 day public comment period for this action. Many public commenters disagreed with several aspects of our proposal, expressing the belief that we should approve either more portions of the Arkansas RH SIP or the SIP in its entirety. We also received public comments agreeing with several aspects of our proposal, expressing the belief that we should disapprove either more portions of the Arkansas RH SIP or the SIP in its entirety. All public comments and our responses are discussed in more detail in section III of this final rulemaking action.
This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of the CAA.
On October 17, 2011, we published the proposal on which we are now taking final action.
We proposed to approve the State's identification of BART-eligible sources, with the exception of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which we find to be BART-eligible. We proposed to approve the State's identification of subject to BART sources, with the exception of the 6A and 9A Boilers at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which we find to be subject to BART. We also proposed to approve certain core elements of the SIP, including Arkansas's (1) identification of affected Class I areas; (2) determination of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (3) determination of the URP; (4) RPG consultation and LTS consultation; (5) coordination of regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (6) monitoring strategy and other implementation requirements; (7) commitment to submit periodic RH SIP revisions and periodic progress reports describing progress towards the RPGs; (8) commitment to make a determination of the adequacy of the existing SIP at the time a progress report is submitted; (9) coordination with states and FLMs; and (10) the following BART determinations from Arkansas's RH SIP: the PM BART determination for the AEP Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; the SO
We proposed to disapprove Arkansas's SO
We proposed to disapprove the State's RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) because Arkansas did not consider the four factors states are required to consider in establishing RPGs under the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(A).
We proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove a portion of a SIP revision we received from the State of Arkansas on April 2, 2008, as supplemented on September 27, 2011, for the purpose of addressing the “good neighbor” provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM
With one exception, we are finalizing our action as proposed. As discussed below, based upon public comment, we are adjusting our action on the Arkansas RH Rule. We are partially approving and partially disapproving the Arkansas RH SIP revision submitted on September 23, 2008, August 3, 2010, and supplemented on September 27, 2011. We are approving Arkansas's identification of sources that are BART eligible, with the exception of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which we find to be BART-eligible. We are also approving Arkansas's identification of subject to BART sources, with the exception of the 6A and 9A Boilers at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which we find to be subject to BART.
We are disapproving Arkansas's SO
We are approving the remaining sections of the RH SIP submission. This includes certain core elements of the SIP, including Arkansas's (1) identification of affected Class I areas; (2) determination of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (3) determination of the URP; (4) RPG consultation and LTS consultation; (5) coordination of regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (6) monitoring strategy and other implementation requirements; (7) commitment to submit periodic RH SIP revisions and periodic progress reports describing progress towards the RPGs; (8) commitment to make a determination of the adequacy of the existing SIP at the time a progress report is submitted; (9) coordination with states and FLMs; and (10) the following BART determinations from Arkansas's RH SIP:
• The PM BART determination for the AEP Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1.
• The SO
• The PM BART determinations for both the bituminous and sub-bituminous coal firing scenarios for the Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2.
• The PM BART determination for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1.
We are partially approving and partially disapproving a portion of a SIP revision we received from the State of Arkansas on April 2, 2008, as supplemented on September 27, 2011, for the purpose of addressing the “good neighbor” provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM
During the public notice and comment period, we received 13 comment letters both supporting and opposing our proposal. We received comments from the ADEQ, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), the National Park Service, the Sierra Club, Entergy Arkansas Inc., the American Electric Power/Southwestern Electric Power Company (AEP-SWEPCO), the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Domtar Industries Inc., Nucor Steel-Arkansas, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, PacifiCorp Energy, and the Energy and Environmental Alliance of Arkansas. The comments we received opposing our proposal contended that we had either overstepped our bounds in proposing a partial disapproval or that we had not gone far enough in our action and should fully disapprove Arkansas's RH SIP. Many of the comments received are similar in nature and are grouped together accordingly. Thus, many of the comments you will read are representative of more than one comment letter. The comments are summarized and addressed below. The full text received from these commenters is included in the docket associated with this action.
We note that the states generally have broad authority to decide appropriate BART controls. However, the CAA gives EPA a more active role in establishing BART emission limits for large power plants.
“In the case of a fossil-fuel fired generating power plant having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, the emissions limitations required under this paragraph shall be determined pursuant to guidelines, promulgated by the Administrator under paragraph (1).”
EPA disagrees that the CAA mandates specific control levels (
The EPA went through extensive analysis to establish presumptive BART emission limits, and intended these limits to be meaningful. As stated in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, the purpose of the presumptive limits in the BART Guidelines was to identify controls that the Agency considered to be generally cost-effective across all affected units. Because EPA's extensive analysis found that these controls are generally cost-effective across all affected units and were anticipated to result in a substantial degree of visibility improvement, EPA concluded that such units should at least meet the presumptive limits. However, EPA's BART Rule does not state that the presumptive limits will represent the “best available retrofit
We note the RHR states:
“States, as a general matter, must require owners and operators of greater than 750 MW power plants to meet these BART emission limits. We are establishing these requirements based on the consideration of certain factors discussed below. Although we believe that these requirements are extremely likely to be appropriate for all greater than 750 MW power plants subject to BART, a State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative determination is justified based on a consideration of the five statutory factors.”
The RHR also states:
“If, upon examination of an individual EGU, a State determines that a different emission limit is appropriate based upon its analysis of the five factors, then the State may apply a more or less stringent limit.”
Therefore, the presumptive emission limits in the BART Guidelines are rebuttable.
“For each source subject to BART, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that States identify the level of control representing BART after considering the factors set out in CAA section 169A(g), as follows:
As previously stated, the presumptive emission limits apply to power plants with a total generating capacity of 750 MW or greater insofar as these sources are required to adopt emission limits at least as stringent as the presumptive limits, unless after considering the five statutory factors, the State determines that a more or less stringent emission limit is appropriate. Further, EPA is not attempting to establish new, more stringent presumptive BART limits. As a matter of fact, EPA's proposed rulemaking did not propose to establish particular BART emission limits on any of Arkansas's subject to BART sources. Instead, EPA's proposed rulemaking proposed to disapprove the State's BART limits where the State adopted the NO
EPA disagrees that our approach is not consistent with the RHR and that we must undergo notice and comment rulemaking to follow our application of the presumptive BART limits for large coal-fired EGUs. EPA reiterates that the RHR and the BART Guidelines make clear that the presumptive limits are rebuttable and may not necessarily be the appropriate level of control for all EGUs.
“For coal-fired EGUs greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants and operating without post-combustion controls (
The BART Rule does not contain language stating that an alternative analysis is required only when a source cannot meet the presumptive limits. The BART Guidelines provides the following:
“Most EGUs can meet these presumptive NO
The intent of this language is to communicate that EPA believes that the large majority of units can at least meet the presumptive limits at relatively low costs (
EPA's proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP did not propose to require Arkansas's subject to BART sources to achieve an emission rate more stringent than the presumptive emission limits. Rather, EPA's proposed rulemaking proposed to disapprove the BART emission limits for subject to BART sources where the State adopted presumptive emission limits without conducting a proper BART five factor analysis. Only after the State conducts a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA, or EPA conducts one in the context of a FIP, will it be demonstrated whether any of Arkansas's subject to BART sources must achieve an emission rate more (or less) stringent than the presumptive limits.
EPA agrees that section 169A(g) of the CAA requires a balancing of the five statutory factors when a State is determining BART.
We agree that regulations, like statutes, should not be interpreted in a manner that is more stringent than the plain language. However, we do not agree that our application of the presumptive limit is more stringent than what is required under the CAA and the RHR. Rather, our application of the presumptive limit is in keeping with the plain language of the CAA and the RHR. Under the RHR, presumptive limits were promulgated to provide a path for states to follow when analyzing BART for particular EGUs. The BART Rule has presumptive limits that act as a starting point for the establishment of BART emission limits unless the state's analysis indicates that an emission limit more or less stringent than the presumptive limit is required. Please see our response to other comments for our discussion of the requirements of the CAA visibility program and the RHR.
EPA disagrees that we should accept state BART determinations that rely on the presumptive limits in every case as long as there is no clear and compelling evidence that presumptive emission limits cannot be BART for a given source. There is no language indicating this in the CAA, the RHR, or the BART Guidelines. On the contrary, EPA's BART Rule and the BART Guidelines make clear that in developing the presumptive emission limits, EPA made many design and technological assumptions, and that the presumptive limits may not be BART in every case. EPA's intent was for the presumptive limits to be used in the State's BART analysis considering the five factors specified in CAA section 169A(g)(2), and considering the level of control that is currently achievable at the time that the BART analysis is being conducted.
The comment appears to suggest that a state's adoption of the presumptive limits will result in achieving reasonable progress. The EPA notes that the RHR stated that applying the highly cost-effective controls reflected by the presumptive limits would result in significant visibility improvement that would help to ensure reasonable progress, not that it would necessarily ensure reasonable progress. Furthermore, for a state to achieve reasonable progress during the first implementation period, it must also look at point sources beyond those that are subject to BART as well as at non-point sources and determine, based on consideration of the four statutory factors under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i), whether it is reasonable to require these sources to install additional pollution controls. Therefore, even if a state satisfies the BART requirements, satisfaction of the reasonable progress requirements cannot be met by complying with BART requirements alone. In addition, the EPA notes that the BART Guidelines make clear that the presumptive limits may not be appropriate for all affected units.
The EPA is not ignoring its own guidance to utilize presumptive limits, as the BART Rule does not suggest the presumptive limits should be viewed as establishing a safe harbor from more stringent regulation under the BART provisions. The EPA's proposed rulemaking did not propose particular emission limits more stringent than the presumptive limits for Arkansas EGUs. Instead, the EPA's proposed rulemaking stated that Arkansas must conduct a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA, before determining whether the presumptive emission limits are the “best available retrofit controls” for affected units. Therefore, the EPA does not believe that requiring the State to conduct a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors places an unnecessary burden on Arkansas electricity ratepayers.
The EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA is requiring Arkansas to perform a PSD BACT analysis for affected EGUs. The EPA notes the comment is not specific in terms of explaining what aspect of our proposed rulemaking led to the belief that EPA is requiring a PSD BACT analysis for
“First, because all BART reviews apply to existing sources, the available controls and the impacts of those controls may differ from source to source. Second, the CAA requires you to take slightly different factors into account in determining BART and BACT * * * Because of the differences in terminology, the BACT review process tends to encompass a broader range of factors * * * Finally, for the BART analysis, there is no
Because of the similarities in the two processes, it is understandable that there may be some misunderstanding regarding our proposed rulemaking to mean that EPA is requiring subject to BART sources to conduct a PSD BACT analysis. Our statement that subject to BART sources must consider the “most stringent option (
The EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA's approach in our proposed rulemaking for the Arkansas RH SIP is beyond what is required to comply with the RHR and that requiring standards more stringent than EPA's own presumptive limits is unnecessary in order to demonstrate reasonable progress. As already explained elsewhere in our response to other comments, EPA's rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP is not requiring Arkansas affected sources to meet standards more stringent than the presumptive emission limits. Arkansas must conduct a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA, before determining whether the presumptive emission limits are the “best available retrofit controls” for affected units. Furthermore, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA require that states consider the five statutory factors when making BART determinations, and the State cannot determine whether or not emission limits more stringent than the presumptive emission limits are necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress when a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors has not been conducted.
We are not claiming that the presumptive emission limits are anything else than what is contained in the RHR and the BART Guidelines. With regard to the comment that nothing in the CAA, RHR, or Appendix Y ever states or implies that the presumptive limits are the starting point in a BART determination, EPA notes that there is no mention of the presumptive emission limits in the CAA. Further, in response to comments on the proposed BART Guidelines that the presumptive SO
EPA disagrees with the comment that the only instance when the presumptive emission limits should not apply is to atypical instances when a source is able to show through a five factor test that it is not able to meet the presumptive emission rates. The comment suggests that for power plants with a total generating power capacity greater than 750 MW, the RHR and the BART Rule provide that an evaluation of the five statutory factors for these units is merely a vehicle for justifying adoption of a BART emission limit less stringent than the presumptive limit. This is clearly not the intent of the RH regulations and section 169A(g) of the CAA.
“We recognize that while some scrubber units currently achieve reductions greater than 95 percent, not all units can do so. The individual units that currently achieve greater than 95 percent control efficiencies do not necessarily represent the wide range of unit types across the universe of BART-eligible sources * * * In addition, we note that the presumption does not limit the States' ability to consider whether a different level of control is appropriate in a particular case.”
Further, in the BART Rule, EPA justified its decision not to establish presumptive NO
“For other units, we are not establishing presumptive limits based on the installation of SCR. Although States may in specific cases find that the use of SCR is appropriate, we have not determined that SCR is generally cost-effective for BART across unit types.”
Therefore, EPA stands by its statement in the proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP that in the BART Guidelines, EPA simply concluded that it could not reach a generalized conclusion as to the appropriateness of more stringent controls for categories of EGUs.
The EPA's application of presumptive BART NO
We disagree that the presumptive limits should represent BART until and unless they are rebutted. We reiterate that nothing on the record states that the presumptive limits represent the “best available retrofit controls” for all EGUs at these large power plants. On the contrary, EPA's BART Rule and the BART Guidelines make clear that in developing the presumptive emission limits, EPA made many design and technological assumptions, and that the presumptive limits may not be BART in every case.
While the BART Guidelines provide that there are presumptive levels of controls for SO
The presumptive limit framework could be compared to the presumptive evidence in litigation. However, the comment mischaracterizes the role of presumptive evidence in litigation as simply to be received and treated as sufficient until it is discredited. Presumptive evidence is circumstantial evidence that creates belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. At trial, many forms of evidence are submitted including circumstantial evidence. All forms of evidence that are admitted in court are reviewed and considered before a decision is made. While presumptive evidence may meet the sufficiency requirement for admission in court, this does not mean that it is looked at alone without review of the other admitted evidence. Presumptive evidence does not trump other forms of evidence. It is just a type of evidence that is reviewed in reaching a court decision. Like presumptive evidence, presumptive limits are one line of analysis for reaching a decision. Like presumptive evidence in the court room, presumptive limits are not the only limit that is looked at when performing the five factor BART analysis. Presumptive limits do not preempt states from conducting the BART analysis nor do they preclude the evaluation of other emission limits to help the state reach its BART determination.
States are required to satisfy all BART requirements in this first implementation period regardless of whether modeling demonstrates that the state will make reasonable progress by 2018 and meet the national goal by 2064. As described in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, we find that in adopting the SO
EPA agrees that the BART Rule and the BART Guidelines provide that presumptive limits reflect controls that the Agency considered to be generally cost-effective across all affected units. Because EPA's extensive analysis found that these controls are generally cost-effective across all affected units and were anticipated to result in a substantial degree of visibility improvement, they may likely be appropriate for all Arkansas power plants subject to BART, but Arkansas must establish different BART emission limits if an evaluation of the five statutory factors reveals that such emission limit is appropriate. However, as discussed in our proposed rulemaking, Arkansas did not conduct a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors for its sources. Therefore, it is not possible to know whether the presumptive emission limits or an alternative emission limit is BART for the affected sources.
In the Arkansas RH SIP, the State adopted the NO
In contrast, in our evaluation of the Oklahoma RH SIP, EPA found that Oklahoma conducted proper BART analyses before determining that NO
In our proposed approval of the Kansas RH SIP, we noted that each of Kansas's subject to BART sources are EGUs greater than 200 MW in capacity and located at power plants with a total capacity greater than 750 MW, which are units for which EPA established presumptive BART emission limits.
While the SO
As articulated in our proposed rulemaking on the North Dakota RH SIP, the Great River Energy Stanton Unit 1 is located at a 188 MW power plant. Therefore, presumptive NO
North Dakota's Minnkota Power Cooperative Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 has no existing SO
While the SO
In summary, EPA disagrees that there is an inconsistency between our approach to presumptive limits in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP and that in our proposed rulemaking on the North Dakota RH SIP and final rulemakings on the Kansas and Oklahoma RH SIPs.
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
Clearly, the most effective controls to address visibility impairment from the source are those that would reduce emissions of visibility impairing pollutants other than direct emissions of PM. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed disapproval of the NO
“If, upon examination of an individual EGU, a State determines that a different emission limit is appropriate based upon its analysis of the five factors, then the State may apply a more or less stringent limit.”
There is similar language elsewhere in the RHR and the BART Guidelines. The RHR and the BART Guidelines do not contain language giving the State discretion to determine whether or not to conduct a five factor BART analysis when the presumptive emission limits have been adopted.
The EPA disagrees that reliance on the 2004 proposed RHR to adopt presumptive limits along with consultation with subject to BART sources to determine whether any site-specific factors vary significantly from those examined by EPA is all Arkansas is required to do to satisfy the BART requirements under the RHR. The RHR states that for each source subject to BART, states are required to identify BART after considering the five statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g), as follows:
“States must identify the best system of continuous emission control technology for each source subject to BART taking into account the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the
Therefore, adoption of the NO
“Based on our analysis of emissions from power plants, we believe that applying these highly cost-effective controls at the large power plants covered by the guidelines would result in significant improvements in visibility and help to ensure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.”
A full reading of the RHR and the BART Rule, demonstrates that the proper interpretation of this statement is that because EPA found these controls to be generally highly cost-effective and would result in significant visibility improvement, EPA concluded that requiring affected sources to achieve at least this level of control would
With regard to the comment that the RHR and BART Guidelines do not support EPA's position that a more detailed or extensive investigation is required, EPA notes that in response to comments on the proposed BART Guidelines that the presumptive SO
“Today's final rule requires the States to determine the rate of progress for remedying existing impairment that is reasonable, taking into consideration the statutory factors, and informed by input from all stakeholders.”
The EPA's 2007 guidance for setting RPGs (referred to hereafter as EPA's RPG Guidance) states the following with regard to the statutory factors under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A):
“The regional haze rule requires you to clearly support your RPG determination in your SIP submission based on the statutory factors.”
Therefore, it is clear that the Arkansas RH SIP has fallen short of its obligations with regard to RPG requirements under the RHR and applicable EPA guidance.
The EPA agrees that states generally must consider the reasonable progress factors (
“The discussion of the statutory factors in this guidance is largely aimed at helping States apply these factors in considering measures for point sources. States may find that the factors can be applied to sources other than point sources; the meaning of the factors, however, should not be unduly strained in order to fit non-point sources.”
As such, what warrants EPA's disapproval of Arkansas's RPGs is that in establishing its RPGs, the State did not evaluate the four statutory factors for sources that are not subject to BART, as required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Arkansas's lack of RPG analysis is especially troublesome in light of several sources not subject to BART which contribute to the impairment of visibility above 0.5 dv, as explained in more detail in our proposed rulemaking. To satisfy the RHR requirements, the State must do more than just consider the URP in establishing RPGs. As explained in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, the RHR provides that EPA will consider both the State's consideration of the four factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and its analysis of the URP in determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress.
In our disapproval of the State's RPGs, EPA is not substituting its judgment for that of the State. Our disapproval is not based on a disagreement with the State with regard to the value of the State's RPGs, rather our disapproval is based on the fact that the State did not evaluate the four statutory factors in establishing its RPGs, especially given that known sources of visibility impairment were not analyzed. We note that, at this point, it is not possible to know whether different RPGs are appropriate for Arkansas's Class I areas. Until the State conducts a proper evaluation of the four statutory factors, in accordance with the CAA § 169A(g)(1), 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), and EPA's RPG Guidance, or EPA conducts such evaluation in the context of a FIP, we will not know whether different RPGs are appropriate for Arkansas's Class I areas.
The RHR states the following with regard to RPG requirements:
“Today's final rule requires the States to determine the rate of progress for remedying existing impairment that is reasonable, taking into consideration the statutory factors, and informed by input from all stakeholders.”
An analysis of the four statutory factors is precisely the “further analysis” EPA refers to in its proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP.
Furthermore, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that states consider certain factors in developing their LTS. These LTS factors are: (A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (B) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (C) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the
Under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), states must submit a LTS that addresses visibility impairment for each Class I area within the State and for each Class I area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from the State. Arkansas has done this, and we are partially approving and partially disapproving that LTS, as explained in more detail in our proposed rulemaking and discussed elsewhere in our response to other comments. Under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), states that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in another state are required to consult with the other state to develop coordinated emission management strategies. States are also required to consult with any other states that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area within the state. As explained in our proposed rulemaking, Arkansas satisfied this requirement through its consultation with affected states. Under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), where other states cause or contribute to impairment in a Class I area, the State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the progress goals for the area. States can meet this requirement through participation in a regional planning process where all potentially affected states are consulted, and by ensuring that they have included all measures needed to achieve their apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. As explained in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, we are finding that Arkansas satisfied its consultation requirements when establishing its LTS.
The EPA agrees that as part of setting RPGs and developing a LTS, Arkansas is required to identify sources of visibility impairment in the State and to establish “emission limitations, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal.” In developing a RH SIP, the state accordingly must consider whether there are reasonable measures that should be adopted. A state is also required to consider the adoption of emission reduction measures needed to achieve the URP. The RHR does not require a state to consider what measures would be necessary to achieve natural background visibility conditions at Arkansas's Class I areas. EPA does, however, agree that Arkansas failed to properly evaluate whether there were any reasonable measures beyond BART that could have been adopted to improve visibility.
“Also, as noted in section 4.2, it is not necessary for you to reassess the reasonable progress factors for sources subject to BART for which you have already completed a BART analysis.”
Therefore, we note that once EPA has approved the BART determination for a particular pollutant for a given subject to BART source, the State is not required to evaluate the reasonable progress factors for that particular pollutant for the given source in order to satisfy the reasonable progress requirements.
As the Entergy Independence Power Plant has significant emissions and emissions reductions from the source would likely help Arkansas and other affected states assure reasonable progress, EPA agrees that the Entergy Independence Power Plant is a good candidate for further consideration by Arkansas. As we are disapproving Arkansas's RPGs, the State will need to consider whether controls at this facility and any other facilities would be reasonable for purposes of addressing visibility impairment.
In the context of acting on the LTS and Arkansas's RH SIP, the comment raises a concern with missing data at the Mingo Wilderness Area's IMPROVE monitor, and refers to a statement in the CENRAP TSD that because of a lack of data it did not meet EPA's data acceptance criteria. The Mingo monitor had a wasp type nest inside the collection apparatus for the Organic Carbon sampling stream that may have impacted the air flow and sampling for these specific pollutants, but not the other sampling streams. The other pollutants, including nitrates and sulfates (NO
With regard to the establishment of a state's LTS, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) states the following:
“Where the State has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area located in another State or States, the State must consult with the other State(s) in order to develop coordinated emission management strategies.”
As explained in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, CENRAP's photochemical modeling demonstrated that besides Arkansas's own Class I areas, the only Class I areas where Arkansas sources can be said to be contributing to visibility impairment are the Mingo Wilderness Area and the Hercules Glades Wilderness Area in Missouri and not Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma. Arkansas considered modeling that was performed by the CENRAP and consulted with Missouri, Oklahoma, and other potentially affected states. In its consultation with Missouri, both Arkansas and Missouri determined that it was not necessary for Arkansas to commit to additional emission reductions since the CENRAP modeling showed that emission reductions already planned by the CENRAP and other states would be sufficient for Missouri's Class I areas to meet their RPGs (notwithstanding the uncertainties that may have been involved in the modeling). We note that Arkansas will be considering whether additional emission reduction measures are reasonable for improving visibility at the Class I areas within Arkansas and revisiting several of its BART determinations. Any more stringent measures adopted by Arkansas to address the deficiencies we have identified in its RH SIP have the potential to also benefit visibility at Mingo and Hercules Glades. When we take action on the Missouri RH SIP, we will consider whether Missouri's RPGs are appropriate.
With regard to the comment that Arkansas sources contributed 2.0% to visibility impairment at Wichita Mountains during the baseline period and are projected to contribute 2.3% in 2018, EPA notes that removal of this 2.3% contribution to the total extinction results in a visibility improvement of only 0.2 dv from the 2018 projected visibility conditions. Although the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) initially believed that emissions from Arkansas sources are impacting visibility at Wichita Mountains and that it might be necessary for Arkansas to commit to additional emissions reductions, Arkansas responded to ODEQ's concerns with a letter dated August 17, 2007, explaining that based on photochemical modeling, ADEQ had calculated that the total visibility impact from all sources in Arkansas at Wichita Mountains is 0.2dv.
Consequently, while we are concerned that the RPG at Wichita Mountains is not on the glide path, we believe the technical assessment that Arkansas sources do not have a significant impact at Wichita Mountains is accurate and ADEQ and ODEQ followed consultation procedures. We therefore disagree that Arkansas must adopt additional control measures to address its visibility impact at other states' Class I areas. Considering the modeling results and since both states agreed to this on the results of the consultations, we find that Arkansas has satisfied its obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii).
EPA's guidance for setting RPGs also provides that:
“The RHR gives States wide latitude to determine additional control requirements, and there are many ways to approach identifying additional reasonable measures; however, you must at a minimum, consider the four statutory factors. Based on the contribution from certain source categories and the magnitude of their emissions you may determine that little additional analysis is required to determine further controls are not warranted for that category.”
Although the State has flexibility in how to consider the four statutory factors, it must consider these four factors in some form. The State made no attempt to do this in the Arkansas RH SIP. Even if emission reductions anticipated from implementation of BART and other CAA programs during the initial planning period are expected to result in a slightly greater rate of improvement in visibility than would be needed to attain the URP for the first implementation period, the State must still consider whether any additional control measures would be reasonable, based on its consideration of the relevant factors. Arkansas's actions are especially problematic as there are sources that are not subject to BART but which contribute to visibility impairment above the State's established BART threshold of 0.5 dv. While EPA agrees that EPA's RPG Guidance states that BART and other existing CAA programs may be all that is necessary to achieve reasonable progress in the first planning period for some states, Arkansas's approach is not supported by our RPG Guidance.
As discussed in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, we agree that the State properly determined its URP, and that the State participated in CENRAP and coordinated and consulted with other states who may be contributing to visibility impairment in Arkansas's Class I areas. We find that Arkansas satisfies these requirements under the RHR. However, that is not all that a state is required to do in establishing its RPGs. In establishing its RPGs for any Class I area, a state must “consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.”
With regard to the comment that modeling projections show that the combination of already mandated controls will provide for a rate of progress that improves visibility conditions and result in the attainment of natural visibility conditions by 2064, EPA notes that the CENRAP modeled the projected visibility conditions anticipated at each Class I area in 2018. The CENRAP modeling is based on emissions reductions expected to result from Federal, State, and local control programs that are either currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction schedules that predate 2018. The CENRAP modeling itself did not show that already mandated controls are expected to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. Rather, the rate of visibility improvement anticipated by the CENRAP modeling in 2018, if sustained, would result in a return to natural visibility conditions prior to 2064. Therefore the comment that Arkansas is expected to ultimately achieve the national goal prior to 2064 assumes that the same level of reductions of visibility-impairing pollutants that is expected to occur during the first implementation period ending in 2018 will increasingly occur during each implementation period until the final implementation period ending in 2064. However, there is no guarantee that this will occur. The Arkansas RH SIP addresses the requirements of the RHR only for the first implementation period
“[A] long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal specified in subsection (a) of this section.”
Consistent with the requirement of the CAA, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) requires that states include in their RH SIPs a LTS that includes “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state.
We acknowledge that the CENRAP modeling shows that with the measures included in the RH SIP, Arkansas is projected to meet the URP for the first implementation period ending in 2018 for both of its Class I areas. However, with regard to the comment that Arkansas's LTS includes those measures necessary to ultimately achieve natural visibility prior to 2064, we note that the Arkansas's RH SIP (including the LTS) addresses the RHR requirements only for the first implementation period ending in 2018. The CENRAP modeling is based on emissions reductions expected to result from Federal, State, and local control programs that are either currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction schedules that predate 2018. The CENRAP modeling itself did not show that already mandated controls are expected to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. Rather, the rate of visibility improvement anticipated by the CENRAP modeling in 2018, if sustained, will result in a return to natural visibility prior to 2064. This assumes that the same level of reductions of visibility-impairing pollutants that is expected to occur during the first implementation period ending in 2018 will increasingly occur during each implementation period until the final implementation period ending in 2064. However, there is no guarantee that this will in fact occur.
“Where other States cause or contribute to impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the progress goals for the area. If the State has participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure that it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.”
A state can meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) if when establishing its LTS, the state can demonstrate that it has included in its RH SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the progress goals. This means that if a state participates in a regional planning process, the state must ensure that the RH SIP includes all agreed upon measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations. Arkansas met part of this requirement by participating in a regional planning process and consulting with other states that cause or contribute to impairment at Arkansas's Class I areas, with the participating states arriving at a consensus with regard to each states' apportionment of emissions reduction obligations. Arkansas's RH SIP includes the regional planning process but those emission reductions agreed to by all states in the consultation meetings will not be met by Arkansas because the reductions from the BART determinations we are disapproving will not be realized. This is consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). As explained in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, we are finding that Arkansas satisfied its consultation requirements when establishing its LTS.
“The regional haze rule requires you to clearly support your RPG determination in your SIP submission based on the statutory factors.”
As explained in more detail elsewhere in our response to comments, even if emission reductions anticipated from implementation of BART and other CAA programs during the initial planning period would result in a slightly greater rate of improvement in visibility than would be needed to attain the URP, the State must still consider the four statutory factors in setting its RPGs.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's statement that EPA's proposed disapproval of Arkansas's RPGs treads on the state's authority under the CAA. The CAA requires that in determining reasonable progress, states should take into consideration the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.
“Today's final rule requires the States to determine the rate of progress for remedying existing impairment that is reasonable, taking into consideration the statutory factors, and informed by input from all stakeholders.”
Arkansas has not considered the four statutory factors, and therefore, cannot make the claim that additional control measures are not reasonable. This is especially troublesome in light of the fact that there are sources in Arkansas not subject to BART which impair visibility by more than 0.5 dv, as explained in more detail in our proposed rulemaking. While EPA agrees that one of EPA's roles in evaluating a state's RPGs is to assure that other affected states have been consulted and agree with the RPGs the state has established,
“In determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs d(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section.”
Among the demonstrations the state is required to develop pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) is an evaluation of the four statutory factors. As such, EPA's role in evaluating a state's RPGs is not limited to ensuring that other affected states have been consulted and agree that the state's RPGs are appropriate.
With regard to the comment that Arkansas Class I areas as well as Missouri's Class I areas are on the “glidepath,” EPA notes that even if a state is projected to meet the URP for its Class I areas during the first implementation period ending in 2018, this is not a safe harbor from more stringent regulation. The RHR requires states to calculate the URP and determine what control measures would be needed to achieve this amount of progress during the first implementation period and to determine whether those measures are reasonable based on an evaluation of the four statutory factors.
“If the State determines that the amount of progress identified through the analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory factors, the State should identify this amount of progress as its reasonable progress goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it determines that additional progress beyond this amount is also reasonable. If the State determines that additional progress is reasonable based on the statutory factors, the State should adopt that amount of progress as its goal for the first long-term strategy.”
As such, being on the “glidepath” does not mean a state is allowed to forego an evaluation of the four statutory factors when establishing its RPGs. Based on an evaluation of the four statutory factors, states may determine that RPGs that provide for a greater rate of visibility improvement than would be achieved with the URP for the first implementation period are reasonable.
While in our proposed rulemaking we noted that Arkansas calculated that under its RPGs, it would attain natural visibility conditions in 2062 for Caney Creek and 2063 for Upper Buffalo, we would like to clarify that such calculation assumes that Arkansas would be able to achieve the rate of improvement reflected by the RPGs for the first implementation period ending in 2018, and each implementation period thereafter. The RHR states the following:
“Once a State has adopted a reasonable progress goal and determined what progress will be made toward that goal over a 10-year period, the goal itself is not enforceable. All that is `enforceable' is the set of control measures which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If the State's strategies have been implemented but the State has not met its reasonable progress goal, the State could either: (1) Revise its strategies in the SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals for the next implementation period. In either case, the State would be required to base its decisions on appropriate analyses of the statutory factors included in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the final rule.”
As such, there is no certainty that the State will achieve its RPGs for the first implementation period ending in 2018, let alone for each implementation period thereafter. With regard to the comment that the modeling approved by EPA shows that Arkansas will meet the visibility goals as set out in the RHR prior to the target date of 2064, EPA notes that the CENRAP modeled the projected visibility conditions anticipated at each Class I area in 2018. The CENRAP modeling is based on emissions reductions expected to result from Federal, State, and local control programs that are either currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction schedules that predate 2018. The CENRAP modeling itself did not show that Arkansas will meet the visibility goals as set out in the RHR prior to 2064. Rather, the rate of visibility improvement anticipated by the CENRAP modeling projections for 2018,
As explained in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, in establishing its RPGs, the State is required by CAA § 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal. An analysis of the four statutory factors is precisely the “additional analysis” EPA refers to in its proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP.
The comment suggests that if a state develops a LTS that is expected to achieve the state's RPGs and meet the national visibility goal prior to 2064, the state will have met the LTS requirements in the RHR. While EPA agrees that the RHR requires states to develop a LTS that includes emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by states having mandatory Class I areas,
NO
EPA also indicated that there is an under-prediction bias in the model that must be considered when examining source apportionment results for sulfate. Given that the 2018 modeling reflects a low bias in the projection of visibility impacts due to sulfates, that there are significant projected increases in SO
As discussed by EPA in Appendix A to its TSD for its proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, it appears that the bulk of the projected visibility improvement in 2018 in Arkansas's Class I areas may be based on projected emissions reductions from sources in Texas. However, Texas has acknowledged uncertainties in its 2018 emissions projections, and that the Texas emissions inventory is based on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Version 2.19, whereas other planning organizations used version 3.0 of the IPM, which EPA has indicated provides “significantly more accurate prediction of future EGU operating scenarios and emissions” (see Exhibit 21). Texas also stated that the IPM Version 2.19 used by the CENRAP projected approximately 14% increase in coal/lignite-fired generating capacity and a 32% increase in gas-fired capacity in Texas, whereas the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) predicted a greater percentage of growth in coal/lignite-fired generating capacity than natural gas-fired capacity (see Exhibit 21). Given the uncertainty in Texas' 2018 emission projections and that the 2018 modeling may under-predict visibility impacts from sulfates, Arkansas should not be allowed to forego performing an analysis of measures that would enable the state to ensure reasonable progress towards reaching natural background visibility conditions at the State's Class I areas. EPA must disapprove the Arkansas RH SIP for failure to include a four-factor analysis of reasonable progress milestones for the State's Class I areas. As part of a four-factor analysis of reasonable progress goals, Arkansas should evaluate emission control strategies that can be implemented to reduce Arkansas's share of visibility-impairing pollution.
In addition, the BART Rule and the BART Guidelines do not specify whether a state can make separate BART determinations for each type of fuel burned by a given source. This should not be interpreted to mean that a state is not allowed to make separate BART determinations for each fuel type burned by a given source. The CAA and BART Rule give states broad authority in making BART determinations. Accordingly, States may determine it is appropriate to make BART determinations for each type of fuel burned by a given source. EPA acknowledges that the BART Guidelines do not specifically mention whether or not states can prorate the presumptive BART limits based on the percentages of each coal burned. However, if a source has a history of burning more than one type of fuel, then the BART determination must either be based on the fuel resulting in the greatest amount of emissions or the State must consider BART for each fuel type.
“[I]n determining best available retrofit technology the State (or the Administrator in determining emission limitations which reflect such technology) shall take into consideration the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology * * *”
In accordance with the CAA, EPA promulgated the BART Rule and the BART Guidelines to clarify the requirements of the RHR's BART provisions. The BART Guidelines provide the following:
Furthermore, the RH regulations define BART as the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable, as determined through an evaluation of the five statutory factors.
Further, in the BART Rule, EPA justified its decision not to establish presumptive NO
“For other units, we are not establishing presumptive limits based on the installation of SCR. Although States may in specific cases find that the use of SCR is appropriate, we have not determined that SCR is generally cost-effective for BART across unit types.”
As such, in the BART Guidelines, EPA simply concluded that it could not reach a generalized conclusion as to the appropriateness of more stringent controls (
Furthermore, the RH regulations define BART as the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable, as determined through an evaluation of the five statutory factors.
“For oil-fired and gas-fired EGUs larger than 200 MW, we believe that installation of current combustion control technology to control NO
The context of the above statement is with regard to whether EPA believed a presumptive emissions limit is appropriate for gas fired and fuel oil fired EGUs. It was not intended to limit the consideration for BART for these sources to combustion controls only. The BART Guidelines should not be interpreted to mean that states should not consider NO
“In order to provide certainty in the process, all technologies should be considered if available before the close of the State's public comment period. You need not consider technologies that become available after this date. As part of your analysis, you should consider any technologies brought to your attention in public comments. If you disagree with public comments asserting that the technology is available, you should provide an explanation for the public record as to the basis for your conclusion.”
As pointed out in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, SNCR was available for industrial boilers similar to Domtar's boilers before the close of the State's public comment period.
Since the State did not conduct modeling to evaluate the visibility impact of operation of SNCR at Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and 2, it is not clear how one could reach a conclusion that SNCR would result in the elimination of less than 10 days of impacts greater than 0.5 dv. Furthermore, the RHR and BART Guidelines require states to consider all five statutory factors, and not just the visibility impact resulting from operation of SNCR. The BART Rule states the following:
“[T]he degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of [BART]” is only one of five criteria that the State must consider together in making a BART determination.”
A proper evaluation of SNCR, through a consideration of the five statutory factors, may demonstrate that installation and operation of SNCR at Domtar Power Boilers 1 and 2 is cost-effective. As such, EPA cannot approve the State's NO
EPA also stands by the statement made in its proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP that the State did not evaluate the visibility impact of all technically feasible options. The preamble to the RHR states the following:
“We agree with commenters who asserted that the method for assessing BART controls for existing sources should consider all of the statutory factors.”
The BART Guidelines also provide the following with regard to the selection of BART:
“You have discretion to determine the order in which you should evaluate control options for BART. Whatever the order in which you choose to evaluate options, you should always (1) display the options evaluated; (2) identify the average and incremental costs of each option; (3) consider the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of each option; (4) consider the remaining useful life; and (5) consider the modeled visibility impacts.”
Therefore, in their BART evaluations, States must consider the visibility impact of a control option before eliminating it. In particular, for Domtar Power Boiler No. 1, for which the State determined that NO
The EPA disagrees with the comment that the decision to forego modeling the visibility impacts of Methane De-NO
For White Bluff Units 1 and 2, we reviewed the data submitted by ADEQ, including pre-control modeling in Appendix 9.2B of the Arkansas RH SIP, to evaluate ADEQ and White Bluff's determination that the majority of visibility-causing emissions are due to emissions of NO
As explained in our proposed rulemaking, in our evaluation for PM BART for these sources, we found that the visibility impact due to PM emissions alone is so minimal such that any additional PM controls could only result in very minimal visibility benefit that could not justify the cost of any upgrades and/or operational costs needed to operate the existing controls to achieve a more stringent emission limit. This is in keeping with the BART Rule, which provides the following:
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
Therefore, we are approving the State's determination that PM BART for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 and White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is the existing PM emission limit (
As explained in our proposed rulemaking and elsewhere in this final rulemaking, our disapproval begins a two year period after which if Arkansas has not provided a new SIP revision and EPA has approved that SIP revision correcting the deficiencies, EPA must promulgate a FIP. If in conducting the BART analyses for NO
Our approval of the limit for direct PM emissions was based on the extremely low modeled visibility impact from these emissions. While reductions in PM may occur from future controls necessary to meet SO
“You must look at SO
This language in the BART Guidelines was meant to clarify that when a state is making a BART determination as to whether a source is subject to BART, the modeling evaluation to determine the source's impact on visibility has to account for both PM
As stated in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, we found that the source's visibility impact from PM emissions alone is so minimal such that the installation of any additional PM controls on the source could only result in very small visibility benefit that would not justify any upgrades to the existing controls. This is in keeping with the BART Rule, which states the following:
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
Therefore, we agreed with the State that PM BART for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 is the existing PM emission limit (
That being said, we note that the 0.1 lb/MMBtu existing PM emission limit (for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1) in Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19, which is based on EPA's NSPS standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart D, § 60.42(a)(1)), applies during the following firing scenarios: coal firing; coal and tire derived fuel (TDF) firing; and during coal firing with leachate injection.
As articulated in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, we are finding that the source's visibility impact from PM emissions alone is so minimal such that the installation of any additional PM controls on the two units could only result in such small visibility benefits that it could not justify any upgrades to the existing controls. This is in keeping with the BART Rule, which states the following:
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
Therefore, we agree with the State that PM BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is the existing PM emission limit in Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19 (
With regard to the comment that White Bluff will be installing baghouses on Units 1 and 2, EPA is aware that Entergy White Bluff has canceled the proceeding before the Arkansas Public Service Commission to obtain a declaratory order approving the installation of these controls. Furthermore, as explained elsewhere in our response to other comments, the Arkansas RH SIP that is before EPA to act on does not include installation of a dry scrubber and baghouse for control of SO
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
Based on our analysis of the data submitted by ADEQ in the Arkansas RH SIP, and our agreement that PM emissions from burning natural gas are inherently very low, we agree with the State that PM BART for Lake Catherine Unit 4 is the existing PM emission limit in Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19 (
A review of the emissions based on AP-42 emissions factors substantiates that the PM emissions from natural gas combustion are inherently low. Table 1.4-2 of EPA's
Accordingly, Appendix 9.1A of the Arkansas RH SIP indicates that the Lake Catherine Unit 4 has a heat input rate of 5,850 MMBtu/hr. Based on Unit 4's heat input rate and the 0.0074 lb/MMBtu PM emission rate from natural gas combustion, the unit's maximum mass emission rate for PM is 43.29 lb/hr. This is actually slightly lower than the existing PM emission limit for Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4 as of October 15, 2007 (
With regard to the comment that the Entergy Whit Bluff Title V permit identifies the PM
The EPA is finalizing its approval of the existing PM emission limit as meeting PM BART for Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4 for the natural gas firing scenario.
This is consistent with the BART Guidelines because the baseline emissions rate represents a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source and actual emissions for existing sources subject to BART should be based from a baseline period by the state. The BART Guidelines provide that only if future operating parameters differ from past practices and they have a deciding effect in the BART determination, then these parameters need to be enforceable limits. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, annual emissions for Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4 were estimated based on the continuation of past practice of using 10% capacity for future emissions. Therefore, an enforceable permit limitation is not required for a 10% capacity use of Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4.
However, our finding that the State did not properly document the cost analysis for NO
Furthermore, as noted in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, the State did not properly consider NO
In addition, as articulated in our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, the State did not consider SO
Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed disapproval of BART for the Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4 for NO
This is consistent with the BART Guidelines because the baseline emissions rate represents a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source and actual emissions for existing sources subject to BART should be based from a baseline period by the state. The Guidelines provide that only if future operating parameters differ from past practices and they have a deciding effect in the BART determination, then these parameters need to be enforceable limits. Consistent with the Guidelines, annual emissions from Entergy White Bluff Units 1 and 2 were estimated based on the continuation of past practice of using 85% capacity for future emissions. Therefore, an enforceable permit limitation is not
However, our finding that the State did not properly document the cost analysis for NO
Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed disapproval of the NO
The comment states that post-combustion controls were eliminated from consideration because they were found to be not cost-effective. Based on the information provided from the Entergy's computer model, the cost-effectiveness of a combination of combustion controls and SNCR is $3,378/NO
“We believe that modeling, which provides model concentration estimates that are readily converted to deciviews, is the most efficient way to determine expected visibility improvement.”
Furthermore, in the preamble to the BART Rule, in response to comments received, we stated the following:
“We agree with commenters who asserted that the method for assessing BART controls for existing sources should consider all of the statutory factors.”
Therefore, Arkansas must evaluate all five statutory factors before eliminating a given control option, especially if there are no unusual circumstances that would make it clear that a particular control option should be eliminated before all five statutory factors are considered. With regard to the comment that the BART Guidelines provide that installation of current combustion control technology is cost-effective and should be considered in determining BART for oil- and gas-fired sources, we note the context of that statement is with regard to whether we believed a presumptive emission limit was appropriate for oil and gas fired EGUs.
While EPA did provide comments in a letter dated November 25, 2009, to the State on the 2008 revised BART analysis for White Bluff, this was done in the context of EPA's review of a draft Title V/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for White Bluff.
We disagree that our rulemaking regarding White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is inaccurate and arbitrary because the EPA did not rely on the 2008 revised White Bluff BART analysis, as the 2008 revised White Bluff BART analysis is not before EPA to take action on.
“Because the category refers to ‘plants,’ we interpret this category title to mean that boiler capacities should be aggregated to determine whether the 250 million BTU/hr threshold is reached. This definition includes only those plants that generate electricity for sale.”
The BART Guidelines also provide the following example to help states determine whether a boiler at a steam electric plant of more than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input falls into “Category 1” (
“Example: A stationary source includes a steam electric plant with three 100 million BTU/hr boilers. Because the aggregate capacity exceeds 250 million BTU/hr for the ‘plant,’ these boilers would be identified in Step 2.”
Therefore, even though the Auxiliary Boiler (SN-05) at the Entergy White Bluff Plant is individually only 183 MMBtu/hr, since it is located at a plant where the aggregate capacity exceeds 250 MMBtu/hr, the Auxiliary Boiler is BART eligible and, as explained in our proposed rulemaking, subject to BART. As such, our proposed disapproval of BART for the auxiliary boiler is consistent with the BART Guidelines and is legally correct. For the reasons articulated in our proposed rulemaking, we are finalizing our proposed disapproval of BART for the Auxiliary Boiler (SN-05) at the Entergy White Bluff plant.
Furthermore, our disapproval of some of Arkansas's BART determinations where the State did not consider post-combustion controls, is not based on a demonstration by EPA that post-combustion controls are cost-effective at any of Arkansas's subject to BART sources. Instead, it is based on our finding that some of the State's BART analyses did not satisfy the RHR and applicable EPA guidance. We did not perform a source specific BART analysis to determine if post-combustion controls are cost-effective at Arkansas's subject to BART sources nor are we required to perform such an analysis in reviewing a SIP revision. As explained in our response to other comments and as required by CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), it is the State's responsibility to conduct a five factor BART analysis that satisfies the RHR and BART Rule using the NO
• Elimination of Bypass Reheat
• Installation of Liquid Distribution Rings
• Installation of Perforated Trays
• Use of Organic Acid Additives
• Improve or Upgrade Scrubber Auxiliary System Equipment
• Redesign Spray Header or Nozzle Configuration
Based on the limited information that has been provided to EPA, it does not appear that the State has evaluated all possible improvements to the existing wet scrubber at Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 2. Therefore, the State must either consider all possible improvements to the existing wet scrubber (including proper documentation of these) or conduct a full five factor BART analysis that satisfies the requirements of the RHR and the BART Rule for Power Boiler No. 2. EPA is finalizing our proposed disapproval of the State's SO
However, we still find that Arkansas did not appropriately consider a number of factors (as articulated in our proposed rulemaking and explained elsewhere in our response to comments) in its five-factor BART analysis for NO
With regard to the comment that a wet scrubber is the “best system of continuous emissions reductions” for SO
Based on comments received during the public comment period, it has come to our attention that we made an error in our calculation of the capacity factor for recent years for Lake Catherine Unit 4. Based on the information provided, we agree that the source has historically operated at less than a 10% capacity factor. The BART Guidelines provide that for the purpose of calculating the cost of controls, the State may calculate baseline emissions based upon continuation of past practice.
Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed disapproval of BART for NO
“You must look at SO
This language in the BART Guidelines was intended to clarify to States that when determining whether a source is subject to BART, the modeling evaluation to determine the source's impact on visibility has to account for both PM
In addition, as pointed out in the TSD for our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, even though the State's cost analysis showed that wet scrubbers are cost-effective ($2,108.25/ton SO
Therefore, we believe that it is necessary for Arkansas to perform additional analyses to evaluate the cost and visibility impact of using lower sulfur fuel oil at Bailey Unit 1 and McClellan Unit 1. It must also evaluate the visibility impact of wet scrubbers and any other control options considered in the BART analysis before making a BART determination.
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
Based on our analysis of the data submitted by ADEQ in the Arkansas RH SIP, and our agreement that SO
As explained in our proposed rulemaking and as pointed out in another comment, the APCEC variance granted to Arkansas's subject to BART sources on March 26, 2010, will require compliance with BART requirements “as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than five (5) years after EPA approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.”
Our actions approving some BART determinations and disapproving some BART determinations for Arkansas sources are severable. We can approve some of the rules and disapprove the rest as long as the rules that are disapproved do not affect those that are approved. This is the case in our partial approval and partial disapproval action, in which we are disapproving the severable BART determinations for some of the units and approving the severable BART determinations for some of the units in Arkansas's RH SIP. Since the portions of the RH SIP submittal we are approving are severable from the portions we are disapproving as explained above, each approved BART determination for a particular pollutant for a given source will have an enforceability of 5 years from the date of EPA's approval. If EPA cannot approve a revised RH SIP for the severable BART determinations EPA is disapproving today before the end of the 2 year FIP clock, EPA will promulgate a FIP for the severable BART determinations EPA is disapproving today. In that case, the compliance deadline will be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of the FIP promulgation. Therefore, EPA disagrees that compliance is required no later 5 years from EPA's
With regard to the comment that EPA should disapprove the State's PM BART determination for Domtar Power Boiler No. 1 because there was no five-factor evaluation for BART for PM, EPA holds that the State did not conduct a BART analysis for PM for Domtar Power Boiler No. 1 because at the time of the State's analysis, it was relying on the MACT standards for purposes of BART. Furthermore, the comment disregards the reason why the BART Guidelines provide that States could take a streamlined BART approach for sources subject to MACT standards. The BART Guidelines provide the following:
Accordingly, the reason why the BART Guidelines anticipated that states could streamline their analysis by relying on the MACT standards for purposes of BART is because EPA believes that such controls are among the most stringent available and that emission controls more stringent than this are very likely not cost-effective. Notwithstanding the court's vacatur of the 2004 Boiler MACT Rule, at the time Arkansas performed its analysis and adopted the 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission limit for PM BART for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1 based on the 2004 Boiler MACT PM standard, the emissions controls reflected by that PM standard were among the most stringent controls available at that time and emission controls more stringent than this were at that time likely not cost-effective for purposes of addressing visibility. Therefore, EPA disagrees that we should disapprove the PM BART determination for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1.
In addition, the impact threshold used in this analysis is problematic because it is likely that ADEQ applied a 0.5 dv threshold, although the discussion in the Arkansas RH SIP on the modeling is limited or not present. Given the number of sources impacting visibility at Class I areas, a 0.5 dv threshold is not appropriate for one visibility impairing pollutant. The RHR and BART Guidelines do not provide for exempting a source from BART for one visibility impairing pollutant. A BART determination must be made for each pollutant and EPA cannot exempt Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 and White Bluff Units 1 and 2 from a BART analysis for PM based on modeling that shows that PM visibility impacts do not trip the BART impact threshold.
Furthermore, the PM modeling used to exempt the source from a PM BART determination utilized an emission rate much lower than the proposed BART limit. The pre-control modeling for Flint Creek included the 24-hr actual maximum emissions rate, which is 70% lower than the proposed BART limit of 0.1 lbs/MMBtu. ADEQ modeled White Bluff Unit 1's highest 24-hour actual PM
For Entergy White Bluff units 1 and 2, we reviewed the data submitted by ADEQ, including pre-control modeling in Appendix 9.2B of the Arkansas RH SIP, to evaluate ADEQ and White Bluff's determination that the majority of visibility-causing emissions are due to
In both cases, it is clear that the visibility impact from PM emissions alone is so minimal such that the installation of any additional PM controls on these units (including any upgrades to the existing controls) could only have minimal visibility benefit and therefore would not be justified. This is in keeping with the BART Rule, which states the following:
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
In reviewing the State's PM BART determinations for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 and White Bluff Units 1 and 2, we utilized ADEQ's pre-control screening modeling using 24-hr maximum actual emissions from the baseline period as recommended in the BART guidelines. We did not rely on the cumulative modeling results found in Appendix 9.2D of the AR RH SIP in our review of ADEQ's PM BART determination for sources at these two facilities. Based on our analysis of the data submitted by ADEQ in the Arkansas RH SIP, we find that no additional controls are required for PM and therefore are finalizing our proposal to find that the existing PM emission limits are acceptable to satisfy the PM BART requirements of Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 and White Bluff Units 1 and 2.
Furthermore the original meteorological databases generated by CENRAP did not include observations as our guidance recommends. The use of meteorological databases that do not include observations may lead, to less conservatism in the CALPUFF modeled visibility results compared with modeling that uses meteorological databases with observations. To account for this, the use of the 1st High modeling values rather than 8th high modeling values was agreed to by EPA, representatives of the Federal Land Managers, and CENRAP stakeholders. The modeling conducted for Entergy's White Bluff Units 1 and 2 deviated from this accepted modeling protocol by using the 8th highest day rather than the maximum impacted day and failed to account in any other way for the loss in conservatism that results from using the CENRAP database that does not include observations. In summary, an approvable visibility analysis would follow the agreed upon modeling protocol for BART and evaluate the visibility benefits for the lowest emission limit achievable by each technologically feasible control as required by the RHR.
It is unclear which facility the comment is referring to regarding ADEQ not making a BART determination for NO
For AECC Bailey Unit 1 and AECC McClellan Unit 1, ADEQ determined, based on pollutant-specific modeling performed subsequent to the initial pre-control screening modeling, that NO
The EPA's proposed rule does not provide any guidance on EPA's views as to how Arkansas and other states should modify the 0.5 dv threshold to account for separate modeling of PM, on the one hand, and NO
We disagree with the characterization of the 0.5 dv threshold as a default value. The BART Guidelines state that “the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across states,” but, “[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.” 70 FR 39104, 39161. The 0.5 dv threshold is not set as a default value but rather a ceiling to what may be determined to be appropriate in any situation. Further, in setting a contribution threshold, the BART Guidelines say that states should “consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.” 70 FR 39104, 39161. The BART Guidelines affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach.
The pollutant-specific approach is acceptable only for PM BART contribution analyses. Furthermore, as
Arkansas did not rely on CAIR to address emissions of SO
ADEQ's approach to modeling a single source on a pollutant specific basis could allow for a BART applicable source to model below 0.5 for each of the pollutants individually (NO
EPA also disagrees that we have developed or implemented any new guidance in our proposal. EPA's approach is based on the 2005 BART guidelines, and additional guidance provided in 2006.
At this time, it is speculation to assume that the future amended MACT rule will lower the capacity factors of fuel use for sources. When evaluating a state's BART determination, the EPA looks at existing requirements and cannot rely on potential future actions in its decision to approve or disapprove a state SIP. ADEQ cannot rely on a future MACT Rule to limit the capacity factor of fuel oil use.
We disagree with the comment's characterization that the CALPUFF model approved for regulatory actions is not a credible model to assess visibility impacts of NO
The BART modeling protocol, developed by the CENRAP for use by all CENRAP states and reviewed by EPA and the FLM including the use of CALPUFF, was adopted by ADEQ. In general, this protocol was followed by ADEQ in determining which sources were subject-to-BART and in modeling visibility impacts from controls in evaluating BART.
The comment suggests that CALPUFF version 6.4 has been updated with an allegedly more robust chemistry and purportedly performs better according to the comment than the current version of the model approved for regulatory actions (currently CALPUFF version 5.8). The comment claims that CALPUFF version 6.4 was shared with EPA in December 2010. We wish to clarify that EPA had a meeting with API representatives and others in February 2011. At this meeting, a PowerPoint was shared about CALPUFF version 6.4, but the full model code, explanations and documentation of the code, model evaluations, etc., have not been provided to EPA as of February 2012. We have a detailed procedure for evaluation of new models that includes documentation, peer review, evaluation, performance analysis, etc. Furthermore, significant changes in models (such as a significant upgrade in the chemistry module) are often required to go through a formal rulemaking process for adoption. As noted by the comment, we previously received comments about the CALPUFF version 6.4 model in another action and provided a response that a proper review analysis and evaluation have not been conducted.
With regard to the comment's observation that the monitoring data indicates visibility impacts due to nitrate formation occur on colder days and that these days are not when winds are generally from the south or east, EPA notes that monitoring data is only collected every three days at each IMPROVE monitor and there is only one monitor in a Class I area. Modeling provides for an analysis of visibility conditions during every day of the baseline period at a number of receptor locations at each Class I area, and is not limited by the number of days data is collected. Modeling also allows for receptors to be placed throughout the Class I area and not limited to one monitor location for estimating visibility impairment throughout the Class I areas. Thus, the comment's observation is overly generalized that the winds do not generally come from the south and east during the colder periods when nitrates are a concern at the Class I areas of concern. This overly broad-brushed statement about wind patterns is not supported by a more detailed analysis of wind patterns nor transport phenomena as wind directions change. We included a more sophisticated approach for source-receptor analysis in our BART Guidelines that takes into account meteorological transport patterns on every day of the year. Since transport of pollutants to the Class I area is not always a direct route as wind patterns change, the more sophisticated approach discussed in the BART guidelines is to use a full meteorological modeling analysis using prognostic meteorological data that has wind speed and direction throughout many atmospheric layers from the surface to the upper atmosphere. CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed using three years (2001-2003) of prognostic meteorological data and 24-hr actual maximum emissions, following the methods in the BART Guidelines. Pre-control and post-control modeling show significant visibility impacts due to the Entergy White Bluff's NO
In taking action on the Arkansas RH SIP submittals, EPA is disapproving a portion but approving as much of the Arkansas RH SIP as possible. Our action today is consistent with the statute. In finalizing our proposed determinations, we are approving the following: Arkansas's identification of affected Class I areas; the establishment of baseline and natural visibility conditions; the determination of URP; Arkansas's RPG consultation; the RH monitoring strategy and other SIP requirements under § 51.308(d)(4); Arkansas's commitment to submit periodic RH SIP revisions and periodic progress reports describing progress towards the RPGs; Arkansas's commitment to make a determination of the adequacy of the existing SIP at the time a progress report is submitted; and Arkansas's consultation with FLMs. We are also largely approving those portions of the SIP addressing Arkansas's identification of those sources that are BART-eligible sources and those subject to BART sources; some of the State's BART determinations for five units; Arkansas's RH Rule; and the LTS.
We are, however, disapproving some of the State's BART determinations for nine units. As explained in the proposal and the previous response to comments, some of the State's BART determinations for the nine units are not approvable because Arkansas did not follow the requirements of section 40 CFR 51.308(e). 76 FR at 64186, at 64187. As a result of EPA's disapproval of the BART determinations, we are also partially disapproving that portion of the LTS affected by this disapproval. Similarly, EPA's disapproval of Arkansas's RPGs is based on the state's failure to follow the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(i)(A). See also CAA § 169A(g). In concluding that Arkansas did not adhere to the requirements of the RHR, EPA is not substituting its policy judgment for that of Arkansas but rather exercising its authority to ensure that the state's decisions are reasonable ones that meet statutory and regulatory requirements.
More generally, we agree that the CAA does not mandate a particular timeframe to meet the national visibility goal. The comment is not relevant, however, as our action to partially disapprove Arkansas's RH SIP is not based on a finding by EPA that Arkansas's RH SIP fails to achieve the national goal. Similarly, EPA is not disapproving Arkansas's RH SIP because we disagree
Thus, EPA's proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP did not propose to require Arkansas's subject to BART sources to achieve an emission rate more stringent than the presumptive emission limits. Rather, EPA's proposed rulemaking proposed to disapprove the BART emission limits for subject to BART sources where the State adopted presumptive emission limits without conducting a proper BART five-factor analysis. Only after the State conducts a proper evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA, or EPA conducts one in the context of a FIP, will it be demonstrated whether any of Arkansas's subject to BART sources must achieve an emission rate more (or less) stringent than the presumptive limits.
On March 28, 2008, Arkansas submitted revisions to its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Transport SIP. In its March 28, 2008 SIP submission, Arkansas stated it is meeting the requirements for protection of visibility in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by the adoption in 2007 of Chapter 15 of APCEC Regulation No. 19, which established Arkansas's RH program requirements. Arkansas also stated in the March 28, 2008, SIP submission, that it was not possible at that time to assess whether there is interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another state until the Arkansas RH SIP is submitted and approved by EPA. Arkansas also submitted Chapter 15, Regulation 19 in its September 9, 2008 RH SIP submittal. The Arkansas RH regulation established a compliance timeframe of October 15, 2013, six years after the adoption of the state regulation or within five years of the date of the approval of the RH SIP by EPA, whichever date comes first. Chapter 15, Regulation 19 outlined the BART determinations for sources within Arkansas including some sources that do not require a mandatory BART determination under the RHR. The emission reductions resulting from the State BART determinations codified in Chapter 15, Regulation 19 are identical to the emissions reductions promised by Arkansas to the other CENRAP member states and included in the CENRAP 2018 emissions inventory modeling to represent Arkansas's share of emission reductions for the region. The CENRAP member states are basing their RPGs and RH programs from this anticipated CENRAP 2018 emissions inventory modeling. On September 23, 2008, Arkansas submitted its RH SIP including Chapter 15, Regulation 19 to EPA for approval.
The EPA could have approved Arkansas's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Transport SIP in 2008 when Arkansas originally submitted the SIP. Chapter 15, Regulation 19 originally established a compliance timeframe of October 15, 2013, six years after the adoption of the state regulation or within five years of the date of the approval of the RH SIP by EPA, whichever date comes first. This provided the necessary emission limits and enforceable mechanisms to ensure Arkansas's apportionment of emissions reductions used in the CENRAP modeling. However, on March 17, 2010, Arkansas granted a variance from the October 15, 2013 deadline imposed by Regulation 19.1504(B) for sources subject to BART listed at Regulation 19.1504(A). Instead, sources subject-to-BART are required to comply with BART only within five years after EPA
If we had acted upon the Arkansas RH SIP earlier than 2010, it would not change EPA's determination that Arkansas's emissions are interfering with other states' visibility programs because Arkansas's subsequent adoption of the BART variance removing the guaranteed six year compliance requirement would have rendered the hypothetically-approved section
The EPA's partial disapproval of Arkansas's SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is consistent with EPA's actions on the SIPs of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not explicitly define what is required in SIPs to prevent the prohibited impact on visibility in other states. However, because the RH program requires measures that must be included in SIPs specifically to protect visibility, EPA's 2006 Guidance recommended that RH SIP submissions meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility would be sufficient. We approved the SIPs of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming in accordance with the 2006 Guidance in 2007 and 2008. However, our 2006 Guidance reflected our recommendations for how states could potentially meet the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement at that point in time. As of August 2006, we stated our belief that it was “currently” premature for states to make a more substantive SIP submission for this element, because of the anticipated imminent RH SIP submissions. We explicitly stated that “at this point in time” in August of 2006, it was not possible to assess whether emissions from sources in the state would interfere with measures in the SIPs of other states. As subsequent events have demonstrated, we were mistaken as to the assumption that all states would submit RH SIPs in December of 2007 and mistaken as to the assumption that all such submissions would meet applicable RH program requirements and therefore be approved shortly thereafter. Thus, the premise of the 2006 Guidance that it would be appropriate to await submission and approval of such RH SIPs before evaluating SIPs for compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) was in error. Our 2006 Guidance was clearly intended to make recommendations that were relevant at that point in time, and subsequent events have rendered it inappropriate in this specific action.
Because of the need to act immediately on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), when some states did not make the RH SIP submission in whole or in part, or did not make an approvable RH SIP submission, we have evaluated whether states could comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by other means. Thus, we have elsewhere determined that states may also be able to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with something less than an approved RH SIP, see e.g. Colorado (76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011)), Idaho (76 FR 36329 (June 22, 2011)), and New Mexico (76 FR 52388 (August, 22, 2011)). In other words, an approved RH SIP is not the only possible means to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility; however such a SIP could be sufficient.
As stated earlier, Arkansas submitted revisions to its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Transport SIP that addressed the requirements for protection of Visibility in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by enacting the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission regulation Chapter 15, Regulation 19 that established Arkansas's RH program requirements and stating that it was not possible at this time to assess whether there is interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another state until Arkansas's RH SIP is submitted and approved by EPA. Since EPA was no longer waiting for the approval of a RH SIP to determine interference with another state's visibility program, we looked at BART determinations cited in Chapter 15, Regulation 19 and submitted in their Interstate Transport SIP. The emission reductions resulting from the BART determinations in Chapter 15, Regulation 19 are identical to the emissions reductions promised by Arkansas to the other CENRAP member states and included in the 2018 CENRAP modeling to represent Arkansas's share of emission reductions for the region. The CENRAP member states are basing their RPGs and RH programs on this CENRAP modeling.
As in New Mexico, we have determined that the analysis conducted by a RPO such as CENRAP provides an appropriate means to ensure that emissions from sources within the state are not interfering with the visibility programs of other states, as contemplated in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In developing their visibility projections using photochemical grid modeling, CENRAP states assumed a certain level of emissions from sources within Arkansas. Although we have not yet received all RH SIPs, we understand that the CENRAP states used the visibility projection modeling to establish their own respective RPGs. Thus, we believe that an implementation plan that provides for emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions used in the CENRAP modeling will ensure that emissions from Arkansas sources do not interfere with the measures designed to protect visibility in other states.
For Arkansas, the EPA is disapproving certain BART determinations. This means that some sources within Arkansas do not have an enforceable emission reduction requirement to meet the emissions reductions promised by Arkansas to CENRAP member states and modeled by CENRAP in their anticipated 2018 emissions inventory because, as explained earlier, Arkansas's enactment of a variance that conditions the BART determinations in Chapter 15, Regulation 19 upon EPA's approval of Arkansas RH SIP. Since Arkansas no longer has an enforceable requirement for certain Arkansas BART determinations that EPA is disapproving, their promised emissions reductions included in CENRAP's modeling and the resulting 2018 emissions inventory will not be realized even though other CENRAP member states are relying upon them in the promulgation of their RPGs and RH SIPs. Thus, our disapproval of some of Arkansas's BART determination means that we have to disapprove a portion of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) SIP submittal.
This approach does not give one state the power to control another state's RH SIP decisions including its BART determinations. Each individual state member of the regional planning committee has the autonomy to make their own decisions on how they are going to reduce their state's emissions and contribute to the overall group's effort to reduce RH in the region. We are abiding by Arkansas's decision to have its BART determinations be representative of promised emission reductions relied upon by other states. As discussed previously, by us disapproving some of Arkansas's BART determinations, the relied-upon emissions reductions used in the development of other CENRAP member state RPGs and RH SIPs will not occur. Therefore, we are partially approving and partially disapproving the portion of the Arkansas Interstate Transport SIP
At issue is Arkansas's requirement to submit a SIP that addresses the 1997 revision to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM
If Arkansas had acted promptly in 1997 to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for ozone and PM
The comment points out that EPA did not consider Colorado's RH SIP in evaluating the visibility component of Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP because it had not been approved yet. EPA points out that at the time we approved Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP, we had not taken any kind of action on the Colorado RH SIP. In fact, we haven't taken any kind of action on the Colorado RH SIP to date. Therefore, in order to take an informed and appropriate action on the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP, EPA conducted a “weight-of-evidence” evaluation to assess the increase in Colorado sulfates and nitrates emissions above what neighboring states assumed. Based on the results of that evaluation, we concluded that Colorado has a minimal impact on visibility at Class I areas in neighboring states. This is not the case with Arkansas. As explained in Appendix A to the TSD for our proposed rulemaking on the Arkansas RH SIP, the CENRAP's photochemical modeling clearly shows that Arkansas emissions are causing visibility impairment at the Hercules Glades and Mingo Class I areas in Missouri. As explained above, we proposed to disapprove nearly all of Arkansas's SO
For purposes of noninterference with other states' visibility programs, Arkansas met with other regional states and promised that it would contribute a certain portion of the emissions reductions to address RH for the region. Although Oklahoma initially believed that emissions from Arkansas sources are impacting visibility at Wichita Mountains and that it might be necessary for Arkansas to commit to additional emissions reductions, Arkansas responded to ODEQ's concerns with a letter dated August 17, 2007, explaining that based on photochemical modeling, ADEQ had calculated that the total visibility impact from all sources in Arkansas at Wichita Mountains is 0.2 dv.
“The State must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and approved by all State participants. The State must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based. The baseline emissions inventory year is presumed to be the most recent year of the consolidated periodic emissions inventory.”
A full reading of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) demonstrates that the requirement for the State to document the technical basis on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects is to ensure that potentially affected states have all the technical information they need to be able to determine whether they agree with the State's apportionment of emission reduction obligations. As pointed out in the comment, Arkansas elected to meet the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to document the technical basis for its RH SIP by relying on technical analyses developed by the CENRAP and approved by all State participants. Through the CENRAP process, all affected states agreed with Arkansas's apportionment of emission reduction obligations and these were included in the CENRAP 2018 emissions inventory modeling on which all the CENRAP member states are relying on to develop their RPGs and LTS. Since the technical analyses developed by the RPOs are often very extensive, it would be unreasonable to expect states to include all these documents as part of their RH SIPs. Since Arkansas relied on technical analyses developed by the CENRAP and approved by all State participants and properly identified the baseline
During the comment period, we provided the commenter with most of the information requested (including all the emission summary spreadsheet files we had), with the exception of two emission inventory summary files. Unfortunately, the document of facility-specific emission projections for 2018 referenced in the comment consists of two SMOKE electronic emissions processing reports that can be viewed in a very large electronic database using database software. However, these reports are too large to export to a spreadsheet, as had been done to generate other reports within the database, because it includes the daily point emissions by facility projected in 2018 for all the facilities in the CENRAP states. We had most of the SMOKE emission reports, which we did provide to the commenter's contractor. We did not consider these few missing emission reports to be critical or necessary to our review because we realized for reasons outside of the data contained in the missing reports that we would have to propose partial disapproval of the Arkansas RH SIP (including LTS and BART determinations). It is not practical to require that the State submit or include every possible electronic file that supports the RPO modeling as this is several Terabytes of data and most of the data has been submitted or is posted on Web sites or ftp sites or available on request. We believe this is the only practical way to address the large volumes of data necessary for the development of multistate regional haze modeling analysis. Unfortunately, as noted in the comment, the CENRAP Web site is no longer being maintained and no emission inventory documents are available on that site. In general, the former CENRAP members have been very supportive in providing information when requested. It was only due to specific issues that we were not able to provide the information for these two SMOKE emission reports when requested. We will continue to work to address this issue as we work with Arkansas on development of an approvable Regional Haze SIP. Again we do not believe that these particular files were critical or necessary to our conclusion that the Arkansas SIP should be partially approved and partially disapproved.
We received several comments requesting that the comment period be extended by an additional 60 days.
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 act on state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action merely approves or disapproves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP submittals EPA is approving or disapproving would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 11, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available retrofit technology.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The amendments read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(a)
(1) The identification of sources that are eligible for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) is approved, with the exception of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which is BART eligible.
(2) The identification of sources subject to BART is approved, with the exception of the 6A and 9A Boilers at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill, which are both subject to BART.
(3) The following BART determinations are disapproved:
(i) The sulfur dioxide (SO
(ii) The SO
(iii) The NO
(iv) The SO
(v) The BART determination for the Entergy White Bluff Plant Auxiliary Boiler;
(vi) The SO
(vii) The SO
(4) The Arkansas Regional Haze Rule, (APCEC Regulation 19, Chapter 15), is partially approved and partially disapproved such that:
(i) The requirement under Reg. 19.104(B) for BART installation and operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after EPA approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan is partially approved and partially disapproved, such that the partial approval is for the BART determinations we are approving and the partial disapproval is for the BART determinations we are disapproving;
(ii) The requirement under Reg. 19.1504(B) for BART installation and operation no later than 6 years after the effective date of the State regulation is disapproved;
(iii) Reg. 19.1505 (A)(1) and (2), (B), (C), (D)(1) and (2), (E), (F)(1) and (2), (G)(1) and (2), (H), (I)(1) and (2), (J)(1) and (2), (K), (L), (M)(1), and (N) are disapproved;
(iv) the Reg. 19.1506 requirement to demonstrate compliance with the BART limits listed in Reg. 19.1505 (A)(1) and (2), (B), (C), (D)(1) and (2), (E), (F)(1) and (2), (G)(1) and (2), (H), (I)(1) and (2), (J)(1) and (2), (K), (L), (M)(1), and (N) is disapproved; and
(v) The remaining portions are approved.
(5) The regional haze long term strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) is partially approved and partially disapproved.
(6) The reasonable progress goals are disapproved.
(b)
(1) The Arkansas Regional Haze Rule, (APCEC Regulation 19, Chapter 15), is partially approved and partially disapproved such that:
(i) The requirement under Reg. 19.104(B) for BART installation and operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after EPA approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan is partially approved and partially disapproved, such that the partial approval is for the BART determinations we are approving and the partial disapproval is for the BART determinations we are disapproving;
(ii) The requirement under Reg. 19.1504(B) for BART installation and operation no later than 6 years after the effective date of the State regulation is disapproved;
(iii) Reg. 19.1505 (A)(1) and (2), (B), (C), (D)(1) and (2), (E), (F)(1) and (2), (G)(1) and (2), (H), (I)(1) and (2), (J)(1) and (2), (K), (L), (M)(1), and (N) are disapproved;
(iv) The Reg. 19.1506 requirement to demonstrate compliance with the BART limits listed in Reg. 19.1505 (A)(1) and (2), (B), (C), (D)(1) and (2), (E), (F)(1) and (2), (G)(1) and (2), (H), (I)(1) and (2), (J)(1) and (2), (K), (L), (M)(1), and (N) is disapproved; and
(v) The remaining portions are approved.