Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action amends the airspace description for Class D and Class E airspace at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA. The FAA is taking this action in response to a request from the Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control to clarify the legal description of the controlled airspace. Some exclusionary language was omitted and the Class E extension was recorded as 1.5 nautical miles and should have been .5 nautical miles. This action enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations for the Hawthorne, CA, area.
Effective date, 0901 UTC., November 23, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.
The FAA received a request from the Southern California Radar Approach Control to clarify the legal description of the existing Class D and E airspace at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA. The current legal description published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending the legal description of the Class D surface airspace at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA, to include the exclusion of that portion of the airspace for Torrance, CA. The Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D, is corrected from 1.5 miles to .5 miles south of the 096° bearing of Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport. The legal description has been clarified to avoid confusion on the part of pilots flying into Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, and coincides with the FAAs aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations. This is an administrative change and does not affect the altitudes or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C.553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace for the Hawthorne, CA, area.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within 2.6-mile radius of the Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, and that airspace 1.5 miles north and 2 miles south of the 229° bearing of the airport extending from the 2.6-mile radius to 3.8 miles southwest, and that airspace 2 miles north and 1.5 miles south of the 096° bearing of the airport extending from the 2.6-mile radius to 3.9 miles east of the airport, excluding the Los Angeles Airport Class D and that portion within the Torrance CA, Class D airspace area. This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles north and .5 miles south of the 096° bearing of Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, beginning 3.9 miles east of the airport extending to 6.3 miles east of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Order on rehearing and clarification.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission affirms its basic determinations in Order Nos. 1000 and 1000-A, amending the transmission planning and cost allocation requirements established in Order No. 890 to ensure that Commission-jurisdictional services are provided at just and reasonable rates and on a basis that is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. This order affirms the Order No. 1000 transmission planning reforms that: Require that each public utility transmission provider participate in a regional transmission planning process that produces a regional transmission plan; provide that local and regional transmission planning processes must provide an opportunity to identify and evaluate transmission needs driven by public policy requirements established by state or federal laws or regulations; improve coordination between neighboring transmission planning regions for new interregional transmission facilities; and remove from Commission-approved tariffs and agreements a federal right of first refusal. This order also affirms the Order No. 1000 requirements that each public utility transmission provider must participate in a regional transmission planning process that has: A regional cost allocation method for the cost of new transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation and an interregional cost allocation method for the cost of new transmission facilities that are located in two neighboring transmission planning regions and are jointly evaluated by the two regions in the interregional transmission coordination process required by this Final Rule. Additionally, this order affirms the Order No. 1000 requirement that each cost allocation method must satisfy six cost allocation principles.
Effective November 23, 2012.
1. In Order No. 1000,
2. Order No. 1000 also requires that each public utility transmission provider must participate in a regional transmission planning process that has: (1) A regional cost allocation method for the cost of new transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation and (2) an interregional cost allocation method for the cost of new transmission facilities that are located in two neighboring transmission planning regions and are jointly evaluated by the two regions in the interregional transmission coordination process required by this Final Rule. Order No. 1000 also requires that each cost allocation method must satisfy six cost allocation principles.
3. In Order No. 1000-A, the Commission largely affirmed the reforms adopted in Order No. 1000. The Commission concluded that taken together, the reforms adopted in Order No. 1000 will ensure that Commission-jurisdictional services are provided at just and reasonable rates and on a basis that is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. The Commission therefore rejected requests to eliminate, or substantially modify, the various reforms adopted in Order No. 1000. The Commission did however, make a number of clarifications.
4. Several petitioners have sought further rehearing and clarification of the Commission's determinations in Order No. 1000-A.
5. Order No. 1000 built on the reforms adopted in Order No. 890 to improve regional transmission planning. First, Order No. 1000 required each public utility transmission provider to participate in a regional transmission planning process that produces a regional transmission plan and complies with existing Order No. 890 transmission planning principles.
6. In Order No. 1000-A, the Commission affirmed Order No. 1000's conclusion that the Commission has ample legal authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to undertake its regional transmission planning reforms. Among other things, Order No. 1000-A rejected arguments that FPA section 217(b)(4)
7. Transmission Access Policy Study Group argues that in Order No. 1000-A, the Commission suggested for the first time that the preference for load-serving entity long-term rights established in Order No. 681 applies only to existing transmission capacity “but not in the broader context of planning new transmission capacity.”
8. In response to Transmission Access Policy Study Group, we clarify that nothing in either Order No. 1000 or Order No. 1000-A is intended in any way to undermine or alter the guidelines the Commission instituted in Order No. 681. Order No. 1000's transmission planning reforms are distinct from the Commission's rulemaking in Order No. 681, as we explain below.
9. Section 1233(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted FPA section 217(b)(4), in which the Commission is directed to exercise its authority under the FPA in a manner that facilitates the planning and expansion of transmission facilities to meet the reasonable needs of load-serving entities to satisfy the service obligations of the load-serving entities, and enables load-serving entities to secure firm transmission rights (or equivalent tradable or financial rights) on a long-term basis for long-term power supply arrangements made, or planned, to meet such needs.
10. Section 1233(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 further directed the Commission to promulgate a rule on long-term transmission rights in organized markets.
11. As Order No. 1000-A explained, we do not find any inconsistency between Order No. 1000 and section 217(b)(4).
12. Order No. 1000-A affirmed Order No. 1000's conclusion that public utility transmission providers must revise their OATTs to provide for a regional transmission planning process that produces a regional transmission plan and satisfies Order No. 890's transmission planning principles.
13. The Commission further stated in Order No. 1000-A that it will evaluate compliance filings to ensure that they comply with Order No. 1000 and that both stakeholders and the Commission have the right to initiate actions under section 206 of the FPA if they believe that, for example, a Commission-approved regional transmission planning process was not followed or if a cost allocation method was not followed or produced unjust and unreasonable results for a particular new transmission facility or class of new transmission facilities.
14. Transmission Access Policy Study Group argues that the Commission should not establish a generic rule that, if transmission providers elect not to propose a section 205 filing of specific applications of their regional cost allocation, the only means to challenge such applications is under section 206.
15. Therefore, Transmission Access Policy Study Group contends that the Commission should require the section 205 filing of project-specific applications of the regional cost allocation methodology, or leave it to the compliance filing process to determine whether such a filing is required.
16. Transmission Access Policy Study Group argues that sole reliance on section 206 to challenge specific implementation of a Commission-accepted Order No. 1000 methodology when the transmission provider has not made a section 205 filing is unjustified.
17. Transmission Access Policy Study Group argues that, at minimum, the Commission should defer making a generic finding now that section 206 is the only available recourse to challenge specific applications of regional cost allocation methodologies absent transmission providers electing to propose section 205 filings of those specific applications.
18. We deny rehearing. Transmission Access Policy Study Group has not persuaded us that the determination not to require the filing of specific applications of the cost allocation method was in error. Order No. 1000's reforms are intended, in part, to establish an open and transparent transmission planning process and require transmission planning regions to adopt a cost allocation method or methods that provide
19. First, stakeholders have had the opportunity to participate fully in regional stakeholder meetings to advocate for a cost allocation method that provides the
20. Second, the Commission will carefully consider the Order No. 1000 compliance filings once they are submitted, as well as any protests filed by stakeholders, to ensure that proposals satisfy the requirements that regional transmission planning processes be open and transparent and that the cost allocation method or methods satisfy the Order No. 1000 cost allocation principles. If a filing is deficient, the Commission will require public utility transmission providers to file revisions to address those deficiencies.
21. Third, once the regional transmission planning process is approved by the Commission and becomes effective, the Order No. 890 transmission planning principles, as incorporated into a regional transmission planning process in compliance with Order No. 1000, will help mitigate concerns about the transparency of the process and the application of the cost allocation method. These principles address, among other things, stakeholder participation, information exchange, and dispute resolution.
22. Moreover, as we explained in Order No. 1000-A, stakeholders always have the option of filing a section 206 complaint if they believe that, notwithstanding these protections, there was an incorrect application of the cost allocation method in a particular instance.
23. Transmission Access Policy Study Group suggests that application of the
24. Transmission Access Policy Study Group asserts that if the cost allocation method is thought of as a formula rate, it would improperly shift the burdens under section 205 of the FPA, especially where a cost allocation method is unlikely to have specificity or objectivity to cabin transmission providers' discretion and where they can ignore stakeholder input. We disagree with this argument. As we discuss above, Order No. 1000 provides for
25. We also disagree with Transmission Access Policy Study Group's argument that the use of a cost allocation method could result in burden shifting under section 205. Order No. 1000-A acknowledged that stakeholder participation is an important aspect of the development of compliance filings to meet the requirements of Order No. 1000, and should ensure that the cost allocation method or methods ultimately agreed upon is balanced and does not favor any particular entity.
26. We do not believe that Transmission Access Policy Study Group has justified at this time its position that public utility transmission providers in non-RTO regions, at least, should be required to file specific applications of the cost allocation method. Again, as discussed above, our expectation is that the open and transparent transmission planning process and principle-based cost allocation method will provide stakeholders with clarity as to why and how costs are being allocated for any specific transmission facility selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation. This is true regardless of whether or not the transmission planning region is an ISO/RTO. As we also discuss above, the Commission will carefully evaluate compliance proposals and any resulting protests to ensure that the proposals meet the requirements of Order No. 1000.
27. Finally, with respect to Transmission Access Policy Study Group's request that we defer a determination on using section 206 as the default mechanism to challenge a cost allocation proposal, references to section 206 in Order No. 1000-A were to remind stakeholders of their right under that provision to file complaints. In any event, as we have previously explained, Order No. 1000-A provides that public utility transmission providers in a transmission planning region, in consultation with stakeholders, could agree to require the filing of specific applications of the cost allocation method. The Commission will review any such requirement during the Order No. 1000 compliance filings process and make a decision based on the record before us.
28. Order No. 1000-A affirmed Order No. 1000's requirement that public utility transmission providers amend their OATTs to provide for the consideration of transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements.
29. AEP requests clarification that an appropriate method for a region to consider transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements is to expressly include consideration of changes in resources and load driven by public policies as part of its baseline projection of changes in resources and load expected over the planning horizon, and then conduct reliability and congestion analyses to determine what transmission investments are optimal given those expected changes in resources and load.
30. AEP states that it is concerned that some transmission providers may seek to satisfy the Commission's public policy requirement by employing only a stand-alone process or procedures that are specifically designed to evaluate transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements.
31. We grant AEP's request for clarification to the extent discussed below. Order No. 1000 requires public utility transmission providers to revise their OATTs to provide for the consideration of transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements.
32. In Order No. 1000, the Commission addressed the removal from Commission-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements of provisions that contain a federal right of first refusal to construct transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation. The Commission also adopted a framework that requires the development of qualification criteria and protocols to govern the submission and evaluation of proposals for transmission facilities by public utility transmission providers in the regional transmission planning process. The Commission further required that a nonincumbent transmission developer of a transmission facility selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation have an opportunity comparable to that of an incumbent transmission developer to allocate the cost of such transmission facility through a regional cost allocation method or methods.
33. In Order No. 1000-A, the Commission affirmed its conclusion in Order No. 1000 that it has the legal authority under section 206 of the FPA to require the elimination of federal rights of first refusal as practices that have the potential to lead to Commission-jurisdictional rates that are unjust and unreasonable or unduly discriminatory or preferential.
34. Finally, the Commission affirmed its decision in Order No. 1000 to address arguments that an individual contract contains a federal right of first refusal that is protected by a
35. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company argues that the Commission failed to support its assertion that provisions that designate incumbent utilities to construct new transmission facilities are unduly discriminatory or preferential, or cause rates to be unreasonably high.
36. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company also argues that the Commission ignores that the
37. We disagree with Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company that the
38. The Commission put forth several rationales to support its determination.
39. Furthermore, as the Commission explained in the Need for Reform section of Order No. 1000-A, the Commission is not required to make individual findings concerning the rates of individual public utility transmission providers when proceeding under FPA section 206 by means of a generic rule.
40. In response to Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company's arguments regarding the
41. In Order No. 1000-A, the Commission affirmed its decision in Order No. 1000 to require the elimination of a federal right of first refusal from Commission-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements for transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
42. The Commission stated that in general, any regional cost allocation of the cost of a new transmission facility outside a single transmission provider's retail distribution service territory or footprint, including an allocation to a “zone” consisting of more than one transmission provider, is an application of the regional cost allocation method and that new transmission facility is not a local transmission facility.
43. Petitioners seek rehearing of the Commission's determination in Order No. 1000-A that a transmission facility is considered selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation if any of the costs of that facility are allocated outside of the public utility transmission provider's retail distribution service territory or footprint.
44. MISO Transmission Owners Group 2 argues, however, that statements in Order No. 1000-A suggest that the decision regarding whether a facility is more efficient or cost-effective is irrelevant to determining whether the requirement to remove federal rights of first refusal would apply.
45. MISO Transmission Owners Group 2 also argues that eliminating the ability of a transmission-owning member of an RTO to construct and allocate the costs of a local transmission facility encourages free ridership by providing an incentive for transmission providers to keep cost allocation within their retail distribution service territory to retain a right of first refusal for local transmission facilities, even when entities outside of the retail distribution service territory or footprint may receive some benefit from such facilities despite their primarily local nature.
46. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company argues that a broader definition of what constitutes regional cost allocation prohibits transmission planning regions from adopting approaches they believe would effectively allocate costs and fairly balance stakeholder interests.
47. Some petitioners request that the Commission clarify that projects with costs allocated to a single zone should be considered local, even if the zone consists of more than one public utility transmission provider, so that the public utility transmission provider may retain a federal right of first refusal.
48. MISO Transmission Owners Group 2 also argues that the Commission's stated concern that such zones might be established to circumvent Order No. 1000 is misplaced.
49. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company contends that the Commission incorrectly claimed in Order No. 1000-A that the scope of Order No. 1000 will be limited. It asserts that, in response to arguments that the requirement to eliminate the right of first refusal is beyond the Commission's authority and will materially alter the business of public utilities, the Commission in Order No. 1000-A emphasized that the requirement did not extend to local transmission facilities.
50. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company argues that because the requirement to eliminate provisions that designate incumbent utilities to construct new transmission facilities is not limited in scope, and does materially alter the businesses of transmission owning companies, the Commission should find that there is no sound basis to require that public utility transmission providers remove such provisions.
51. On rehearing of Order No. 1000-A, petitioners have raised two issues related to Order No. 1000's requirement that public utility transmission providers remove federal rights of first refusal from Commission-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements. First, some petitioners seek rehearing of Order No. 1000-A's determination that if any of the costs of a new transmission facility are allocated regionally or outside of a public utility transmission provider's retail distribution service territory or footprint, then there can be no federal right of first refusal associated with such transmission facility. Second, on rehearing some petitioners argue that projects with costs allocated to a single zone should be considered local, even if there is more than one public utility transmission provider located in that zone, so that the public utility transmission provider may retain a federal right of first refusal under those circumstances. We deny rehearing and will discuss each of these issues in turn.
52. As noted above, the first issue we address concerns requests for rehearing of Order No. 1000-A's determination that if any costs of a new transmission facility are allocated regionally or outside of a public utility transmission provider's retail distribution service territory or footprint, then there can be no federal right of first refusal associated with such transmission facility, except as provided in Order Nos. 1000 and 1000-A.
53. We note that neither Order No. 1000 nor Order No. 1000-A requires elimination of a federal right of first refusal in all circumstances.
54. With respect to the second issue raised by petitioners—whether a project whose costs are allocated to a single zone with multiple transmission owners should be considered local and thus permit a public utility transmission provider to retain a federal right of first refusal under these circumstances—the Commission recognized in Order No. 1000-A that special consideration is needed when a small transmission provider is located within the footprint of another transmission provider.
55. We therefore agree with petitioners that the Commission's requirements have not entirely eliminated opportunities for free ridership. As evidenced by the multiple comments and petitions the Commission received in the Order No. 1000 proceedings, the Commission balanced many competing interests in determining how to best implement the requirements of Order No. 1000. Some presented their views of the advantages of retaining a federal right of first refusal for all new transmission facilities while others presented their views of the advantages of eliminating a federal right of first refusal for all new transmission facilities. The Commission has considered the arguments raised by petitioners on rehearing with respect to both of the above-mentioned issues and rejects petitioners' requests for rehearing as we find that the approach taken in Order Nos. 1000 and 1000-A provides the best balance of competing considerations.
56. In Order No. 1000-A, the Commission affirmed its decision in Order No. 1000 to require each public utility transmission provider to amend its OATT to describe a transparent and not unduly discriminatory process for evaluating whether to select a proposed transmission facility in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
57. The Commission also continued to emphasize that any qualification criteria or process for selecting transmission facilities in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation must be transparent and not unduly discriminatory.
58. AEP maintains that some regions are considering a process in which third parties (e.g., one or more states) select the developer for a transmission project after the regional planning entity has identified needed transmission projects in its regional transmission plan.
59. We decline to clarify in advance of the compliance filings whether any particular approach to the selection of a transmission developer is a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential selection process. Order No. 1000 requires public utility transmission providers in a region to adopt transparent and not unduly discriminatory criteria for selecting a new transmission project in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
60. In Order No. 1000, the Commission required each public utility
61. In Order No. 1000-A, the Commission reaffirmed Order No. 1000's requirement that an interregional transmission facility must be selected in each relevant regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation to be eligible for cost allocation under the interregional cost allocation method or methods.
62. Additionally, the Commission acknowledged that, under the interregional transmission coordination procedures of Order No. 1000, an interregional transmission facility is unlikely to be selected for interregional cost allocation unless each transmission planning region benefits or the transmission planning region that benefits compensates the region that does not through a separate agreement. The Commission expressed its continued belief that, under the regional transmission planning approach adopted in Order No. 1000, it is appropriate for each transmission planning region to determine for itself whether to select in its regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation an interregional transmission facility that extends partly within its regional footprint based on the information gained during the joint evaluation of an interregional transmission project.
63. AEP requests clarification that the inclusion of an interregional project in a regional plan need not be subject to the same benefits tests that would be applied to a single-region project, and that a region may include an interregional project in its plan if the benefits to the region compare favorably to the share of the costs that would be borne by that region (as distinct from the total project costs).
64. Order No. 1000 did not specify whether or how a regional or interregional benefit-cost threshold should be applied when selecting a project in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation, or which costs should be included when calculating a benefit-cost threshold to use in this selection process. This was to provide the opportunity for each region to develop an appropriate calculation, if it chose to use a threshold at all. Therefore, we decline to clarify in advance of the compliance filings how a benefit-cost threshold should be applied.
65. In Order No. 1000, the Commission required that each public utility transmission provider have in its OATT a method, or set of methods, for allocating the costs of new regional transmission facilities selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation (“regional cost allocation”); and that each public utility transmission provider within two (or more) neighboring transmission planning regions develop a method, or set of methods, for allocating the costs of new interregional transmission facilities that each of the two (or more) neighboring transmission planning regions selected for purposes of cost allocation because such facilities would resolve the individual needs of each region more efficiently or cost-effectively (“interregional cost allocation”).
66. The Commission also required that regional and interregional cost allocation methods each adhere to six regional and interregional cost allocation principles: (1) Costs must be allocated in a way that is roughly commensurate with benefits; (2) there must be no involuntary allocation of costs to non-beneficiaries; (3) a benefit to cost threshold ratio cannot exceed 1.25; (4) costs must be allocated solely within the transmission planning region
67. In Order No. 1000, the Commission adopted the following Cost Allocation Principle 2 for both regional and interregional cost allocation:
Regional Cost Allocation Principle 2: Those that receive no benefit from transmission facilities, either at present or in a likely future scenario, must not be involuntarily allocated any of the costs of those transmission facilities.
Interregional Cost Allocation Principle 2: A transmission planning region that receives no benefit from an interregional transmission facility that is located in that region, either at present or in a likely future scenario, must not be involuntarily allocated any of the costs of that transmission facility.
68. The Commission also required that every cost allocation method or methods provide for allocation of the entire prudently incurred cost of a transmission project to prevent stranded costs.
69. On rehearing, the Commission affirmed Order No. 1000's adoption of Regional and Interregional Cost Allocation Principle 2. The Commission explained that scenario analysis is a common feature of electric power system planning, and that it believed that public utility transmission providers are in the best position to apply it in a way that achieves appropriate results in their respective transmission planning regions.
70. The Commission clarified that public utility transmission providers may rely on scenario analyses in the preparation of a regional transmission plan and the selection of new transmission facilities for cost allocation purposes. If a project or group of projects is shown to have benefits in one or more of the transmission planning scenarios identified by public utility transmission providers in their Commission-approved Order No. 1000-compliant cost allocation methods, Principle 2 would be satisfied.
71. Organization of MISO States argues that the Commission erred in paragraph 690 of Order No. 1000-A when it concluded that if a project or group of projects is shown to have benefits in any one of the transmission planning scenarios studied by a public utility transmission provider in its planning process, then the conditions for satisfaction of Cost Allocation Principle 2 will be determined to have been met. It contends that, in response to ITC Companies' request for clarification, the Commission stated that a “likely future scenario” that would justify an allocation of costs for new transmission facilities includes the transmission planning scenarios being used by a transmission provider to prepare a regional transmission plan.
72. We clarify that in finding that Cost Allocation Principle 2 would be satisfied if a project or group of projects is shown to have benefits in one or more of the transmission planning scenarios identified by public utility transmission providers in their Commission-approved Order No. 1000-compliant cost allocation methods, we did not intend to remove the “likely future scenarios” concept from transmission planning. We believe the evaluation of likely future scenarios can be an important factor in public utility transmission providers' consideration of transmission projects and in the identification of beneficiaries consistent with the cost causation principle.
73. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by an agency.
74. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
75. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
76. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
77. Changes to Order Nos. 1000 and 1000-A made in this order on rehearing and clarification will be effective on November 23, 2012.
By the Commission. Commissioner LaFleur is dissenting in part with a separate statement. Commissioner Clark is not participating.
The following appendices will not be published in the
LaFLEUR, Commissioner,
As part of today's order, the Commission affirms its holding in Order No. 1000-A that an incumbent transmission provider may not retain a federal right of first refusal (ROFR) for a new transmission project—even a local reliability project—if that project receives
In Order No. 1000, the Commission eliminated the ROFR for projects “selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation” but allowed it to continue for local projects.
With respect to the question about zones, in Order No. 1000-A the Commission acknowledged that “there may be a continuum of examples” that require fact specific determinations.
In contrast, in Order 1000-A the Commission did reach a definitive conclusion with respect to whether any amount of regional funding converts an otherwise local reliability project in to a regional project for purposes of the ROFR. The Commission clarified, without explanation,
After further consideration, I believe the Commission acted prematurely in concluding that
In Order No. 1000, the Commission balanced many competing policy considerations in an effort to adopt the reforms necessary to assure just and reasonable rates.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of mariners on navigable waters during maintenance on the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The safety zone will temporarily restrict vessel movement within the designated area starting on December 20, 2012, through October 31, 2013.
This rule is effective from December 20, 2012, until October 31, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2012-0741]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email CWO4 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina; telephone 252-247-4525, email
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On August 21, 2012, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (33 FR 50444). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to American Bridge Company of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge maintenance on the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The contract provides for cleaning, painting, and steel repair to commence on December 20, 2012 with a completion date of October 31, 2013. The contractor will utilize a 40 foot by 60 foot sectional barge as a work platform and for equipment staging. This safety zone will provide a safety buffer to transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduction horizontal clearance. During this period the Coast Guard will require a one hour notification to the work supervisor for passage through the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The bridge notification requirement will apply during the maintenance period for vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 60 feet.
We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina (34°03′21″ N, 077°53′58″ W). All vessels transiting this section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 60 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification to the work supervisor while the safety zone is in effect. This zone will be in effect from 8 a.m. December 20, 2012 through 8 p.m. October 31, 2013.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does not restrict traffic from transiting the designated portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 60 feet.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 affects the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 a.m. December 20, 2012 through 8 p.m. October 31, 2013.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification to the work supervisor. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
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 will not call for a 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
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 determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the
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)
(1) All vessels requiring greater than 60 feet horizontal clearance to safely transit through the US 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina must contact the work supervisor tender on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16 or at (410) 320-9877 one hour in advance of intended transit.
(2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
(3) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is extending the timeframe for a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of mariners on navigable waters during maintenance of the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The safety zone extension will temporarily restrict vessel movement within the designated area starting on December 12, 2012 through February 14, 2013.
This rule is effective from December 12, 2012, through February 14, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2012-0812. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email CWO4 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina; telephone 252-247-4525, email
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On September 17, 2012 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation has contracted Marine Contracting Corporation of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge maintenance on the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The contract provides for replacement of the fender system to commence on September 12, 2012 with a completion date of December 12, 2012. The contractor has been granted an extension by North Carolina Department of Transportation until February 14, 2013 to complete the bridge maintenance. The contractor will utilize
We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina (34°40′28″ N, 077°03′56″ W). All vessels transiting this section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification to the work supervisor at the NC 58 Fixed Bridge while the safety zone is in effect. This initial zone (published in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does restrict traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
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 will not call for a 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
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 determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination 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)
(1) All vessels requiring greater than 50 feet horizontal clearance to safely transit through the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina must contact the work supervisor on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16 one hour in advance of intended transit.
(2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
(3) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is extending for an additional 45 days the existing administrative stay of the final rule titled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination” under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). EPA previously stayed this rule for 90 days, from July 16, 2012 until October 15, 2012. This action extends the existing administrative stay by an additional 45 days to allow for additional time for further discussions of alternatives to EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Today's action reflects this stay in the Code of Federal Regulations.
40 CFR 52.1628 is stayed from October 15, 2012 until November 29, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal eRulemaking portal index at
Agustin Carbo-Lugo, EPA Region 6, (214) 665-8037,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” “our,” or “the Agency” is used, we mean the EPA. Unless otherwise specified, when we say the “San Juan Generating Station,” or “SJGS,” we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4, inclusive.
On August 22, 2011, the EPA published a final rule disapproving a portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision received from the State of New Mexico on September 17, 2007, for the purpose of addressing the “good neighbor” requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
Petitions for judicial review of the final rule were subsequently filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The petitioners bringing those challenges are WildEarth Guardians, Public Service of New Mexico (PNM), and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez with the New Mexico Environment Department.
By a letter to the EPA Administrator, dated April 26, 2012, the Governor of New Mexico requested “a short term (90-day) stay” of the federal implementation plan to evaluate the potential for alternatives to the rule requirements. She presents a stay as being necessary for “meaningful, productive negotiations” that may lead to an avoidance of litigation. By a letter to the acting Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6, dated May 8, 2012, PNM also requested “an opportunity to engage in productive discussions as proposed by Governor Martinez.” In response to these requests, EPA stayed the effectiveness of its rule for 90 days. 77 FR 41697 (July 16, 2012). This temporary stay is set to expire on October 15, 2012.
We now believe that additional time is warranted so that the State of New Mexico can provide additional information required for EPA to consider the state's alternative and for further discussions among the stakeholders. The extension of time will allow EPA, the State of New Mexico and stakeholders to discuss New Mexico's new plan proposal, or additional ideas that could prove beneficial in creating a state plan that would ultimately satisfy the requirements of the CAA.
Pursuant to section 705 of the APA, the EPA hereby extends the existing administrative stay of the effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule for a period of an additional 45 days beyond the current expiration date of October 15, 2012. By this action, we are extending the administrative stay of the effectiveness of the rule published in the
Under section 705 of the APA, “an agency * * * may postpone the effective date of [an] action taken by it pending judicial review.” This source of authority requires an Agency finding that “justice requires” a temporary stay of rule requirements. Accordingly, as groundwork for the mentioned discussions among the Agency, the State of New Mexico, and other stakeholders, EPA now finds that justice requires an additional 45-day stay of the rule's effectiveness. Our extension of the temporary stay of the effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule applies only to any requirements established in 40 CFR 52.1628 during the duration of the stay, as described previously in the initial 90-day stay.
The EPA also believes that there is good cause to make today's action effective immediately, rather than effective within 30 days, within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). One purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final action takes effect. Whereas here, this action extends the stay that is already in effect, and any delay in its effectiveness will result in unnecessary delays for productive negotiations. Therefore, balancing the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness, which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of this action, EPA has determined that it is unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this action. Additionally, since this action does not “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551(4), nor makes changes to substantive requirements, EPA concludes that it does not constitute a substantive rulemaking. Therefore, it is not subject to notice and comment requirements.
This action will extend the current administrative stay of the NM FIP for an additional 45 days and imposes no additional requirements. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
This action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute. This action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because, although subject to the APA, this action does not “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,” within the meaning of APA § 551(4).
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 this temporary stay does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1-year. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action will extend the current administrative stay of the NM FIP for an additional 45 days and imposes no additional requirements.
This temporary stay 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. This action merely is an extension to stay the effectiveness of a final rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
EPA will consult and coordinate with Tribes regarding BART alternatives during the stay, however, this temporary stay does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. Furthermore, this action does not “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551(4), and therefore, it does not constitute a substantive rulemaking. As such, this action only grants a 90-day stay of the effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule without altering any future established compliance requirements. Therefore, the requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this action.
This extension of a temporary stay is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a rule of general applicability, it is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
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.
This extension of a temporary stay is not subject to the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”). Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, 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.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
This extension of a temporary stay is not subject to Executive Order 12898. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not change the substance of 40 CFR 52.1628.
This action is not subject to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”). The CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control technology.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of fluoxastrobin and its Z-isomer in or on poultry, liver; hog, fat; hog, meat byproducts; and rice, grain. Arysta LifeScience, North America, LLC, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective October 24, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 24, 2012, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0677, is available at
Heather Garvie, Registration Division (7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0034; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0677 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 24, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0677, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the proposed tolerance on rice, grain to 4.0 ppm and established additional tolerances for hog, fat; hog, meat byproducts; and poultry, liver. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fluoxastrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluoxastrobin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The most recent human health risk assessment for fluoxastrobin was conducted for use on the squash/cucumber crop subgroup 9B. Since that time, an adequate functional immunotoxicity study has been submitted and reviewed. In accordance with 40 CFR part 158—Data Requirements for Pesticides, a subchronic inhalation study is also required for fluoxastrobin. However, the Agency has waived the inhalation toxicity study data requirement at this time. The hazard characterization and toxicity endpoints for risk assessment remain unchanged.
Fluoxastrobin and its major metabolites were evaluated in a battery of genotoxicity tests and results were negative. The carcinogenic potential of fluoxastrobin was adequately tested in rats and mice of both sexes. The results demonstrated a lack of treatment-related increase in tumor incidence in rats or mice. There was no mutagenicity concern and no structure activity relationship alert. It was concluded that there was no incidence of carcinogenicity for fluoxastrobin. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluoxastrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule that established a tolerance for residues of fluoxastrobin in or on squash/cucumber subgroup 9B. That rule was published in the
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty factors (UFs)/safety factors (SFs) are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluoxastrobin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluoxastrobin for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 93 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.038 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 93 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Fluoxastrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Spot treatment and/or broadcast control of diseases on turf, including lawns and golf courses. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handler exposure for adults is expected to be short-term only. Intermediate-term and chronic exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. Since there are no toxicity findings for the short-term dermal route of exposure up to the limit dose, the residential handler assessment only includes the inhalation route of exposure.
There is also potential for homeowners and their families (of varying ages) to be exposed as a result of entering areas that have previously been treated with fluoxastrobin. Exposure might occur on areas such as lawns used by children or recreational areas such as golf courses used by adults and youths. Potential routes of exposure include dermal (adults and children) and incidental oral ingestion (children). Since no acute hazard has been identified, an assessment of episodic granular ingestion was not conducted. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at:
4.
EPA has not found fluoxastrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fluoxastrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluoxastrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
i. Developmental toxicity studies in rats.
ii. Developmental toxicity studies in rabbits.
iii. A 2-generation reproduction study in rats.
3.
i. The toxicity database for fluoxastrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that fluoxastrobin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that fluoxastrobin results in increased susceptibility in
iv. The exposure databases are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures. The
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Fluoxastrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fluoxastrobin. Because all short- and intermediate-term quantitative hazard assessments (via the dermal and incidental oral routes) for fluoxastrobin are based on the same endpoint, a screening-level, conservative aggregate risk assessment was conducted that combined the short-term incidental oral and intermediate-term exposure estimates (i.e., the highest exposure estimates) in the risk assessments for adults. The Agency believes that most residential exposure will be short-term, based on the use pattern.
There is potential short- and intermediate-term exposure to fluoxastrobin via the dietary (which is considered background exposure) and residential (which is considered primary) pathways. For adults, these pathways lead to exposure via the oral (background), and dermal and inhalation (primary) routes. For children, these pathways lead to exposure via the oral (background), and incidental oral and dermal (primary) routes.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 920 for adults and 220 for children (1-2 years old). Because EPA's level of concern for fluoxastrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. Method No. 00604 is available for plant commodities and Method No. 00691 is available for animal commodities. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. There are currently no established Mexican, Canadian, or Codex MRLs or tolerances for fluoxastrobin.
One comment was received to the docket from the City of Sacramento, CA. The comment was a request that the EPA thoroughly review the request to register fluoxastrobin for use on rice with regard to its potential to affect drinking water quality. The Agency has determined that dietary risks for fluoxastrobin are below the Agency's concern for dietary exposure and risk.
The petitioner requested a tolerance level of 6.0 ppm for rice, grain in the notice of filing. The Agency has revised the tolerance level from 6.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm for rice, grain based on the data used to support the risk assessment. The petitioner has subsequently submitted a revised notice of filing to the Agency requesting a tolerance level of 4.0 ppm for rice, grain.
The use of fluoxastrobin on rice, grain will result in a slight increase in the dietary burden to ruminants; however secondary residues in rumiant commodities are not expected to exceed the established tolerances for milk and ruminant tissues. The increased dietary burden to swine and poultry results in the need for tolerances for hog, fat at 0.03 ppm; hog meat, byproducts at 0.06 ppm; and poultry, liver at 0.06 ppm.
Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of fluoxastrobin and its
This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary final rule; emergency action extension.
NMFS extends the emergency closure of the Delmarva Access Area (DMV) published on May 14, 2012, which is scheduled to expire on November 10, 2012. Specifically, this temporary rule extends the 180-day closure of the DMV in fishing year (FY) 2012 for an additional 186 days, through May 13, 2013.
This rule is effective from November 10, 2012, through May 14, 2013. The expiration date of the temporary rule published May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28311), is extended to May 14, 2013, unless superseded by another action which will publish in the
The Environmental Assessment (EA) is available by request from: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276, or via the Internet at
Christopher Biegel, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9112; fax 978-281-9135.
This temporary final rule extends the emergency measures implemented on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 28311, May 14, 2012), as authorized by section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), closing the DMV. The May 14, 2012, emergency rule included detailed information on purpose and need to close the DMV for FY 2012, as well as an announcement that NMFS intended to extend this emergency rule for an additional six months. The closure of the DMV area for FY 2012 was supported by the scallop industry, and the emergency action was recommended by the Council at its January 2012 meeting. There were no comments received on the original emergency rule.
This extension adds additional measure that could not be included in the initial emergency rule because it would not have become effective until after the statutory required expiration of the initial rule on November 10, 2012. Framework Adjustment 22 to the Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (FW 22) (76 FR 43774; July 21, 2011) set measures extending into FY 2013 as though the DMV would be opened. In particular, it allowed scallop research set-aside (RSA) pounds to be harvested in the DMV. The original emergency rule to close the DMV adjusted the regulations to eliminate the DMV from this set-aside in FY 2012. However, these changes could not be extended into FY 2013 because the original emergency rule was statutorily required to expire on November 10, 2012. Since this action will extend the DMV closure into the FY 2013, this rule adjusts the regulations by removing the DMV from the RSA language. Framework Adjustment 24 to the Scallop FMP is expected maintain the DMV closure and is expected to be in place prior to the expiration of this rule.
The emergency rule closed the DVM because fishing in the area in FY 2012 could result in localized overfishing of the area. In addition, there would be no protection for small scallops in the DMV if it remains open for FY 2012. This could have negative impacts on recruitment in the short and medium term, and could reduce the long-term biomass and yield from the DMV and the Mid-Atlantic overall. The success of the entire scallop rotational management program depends on timely openings and closing of access areas in order to protect scallop recruitment and optimize yield. NMFS must extend the emergency measures because the closure must remain in place for the full FY to prevent these negative impacts.
Framework 22 to the Scallop FMP (Framework 22) used 2010 survey results to set the allocations for FYs 2011 and 2012. Based on this information, Framework 22 allocated 156 full-time (FT) vessels 1 trip each into DMV, which equated to 2.8 M lb (1,270 mt) of scallops from this area in FY 2012. However, catch rates in the DMV declined from about 2,000 lb (907 kg) per day in the start of FY 2011 to less than 1,000 lb (434 kg) per day later in the FY. Based on these 2011 catch rates, NMFS expected catch rates in DMV in 2012 to be approximately 1,000 lb (434 kg) per day, compared to about 2,200 lb (998 kg) per day or higher in CAI. With lower catch rates, vessels must fish longer to catch the allowed possession limit. This increases the amount of time and area that the scallop fishing gear is in contact with the sea floor (i.e., increased area swept), resulting in negative impacts on the scallop resource due to increased discarding of small and otherwise unprofitable scallops.
The 2011 surveys in CAI estimated scallop biomass levels that are higher than Framework 22's 2011 projections based on the 2010 survey results, and that would support additional effort. When the emergency rule reallocated FT vessel DMV trips, the total number of CAI trips increased to 313. The increase in CAI trips results in an FY 2012 CAI allocation of 5.6 M lb (2,540 mt) of scallops, which is not expected to result in excessive fishing in CAI for FY 2012.
NMFS policy guidelines for the use of emergency rules (62 FR 44421; August 21, 1997) specify the following three criteria that define what an emergency situation is, and justification for final rulemaking: (1) The emergency results from recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances; (2) the emergency presents serious conservation or management problems in the fishery; and (3) the emergency can be addressed through emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative consideration of the impacts on participants to the same extent as would be expected under the normal rulemaking process. NMFS policy guidelines further provide that emergency action is justified for certain situations where emergency action would prevent significant direct economic loss, or to preserve a significant economic opportunity that otherwise might be foregone. As noted in the May 14, 2012, emergency rule, NMFS determined that it was necessary to close the DMV, consistent with new scientific advice, in a timely manner in order avoid localized overfishing of the area and negative impacts on recruitment in the short and medium term.
No comments were received in response to a request for comments on the original emergency action.
NMFS has determined that this rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that it is unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest to provide for any additional prior notice and opportunity for the public to comment. As more fully explained above, the reasons justifying promulgation of this rule on an emergency basis, coupled with the fact that the public has had the opportunity to comment on NMFS' intent to extend this emergency, make solicitation of public comment unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest. This action provides the benefit of allowing the Atlantic sea scallop fleet to avoid localized overfishing of the DMV and the associated negative impacts on recruitment in the short and medium term.
In the interest of receiving public input on this action, the EA analyzing this action was made available to the public and the original temporary final rule solicited public comment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the full 30-day delay in effectiveness for this rule. This rule primarily extends the rule currently in place for an additional 6 months. The need for this extension was fully anticipated and announced to the public in the initial emergency rule which published on May 14, 2012. The additional measure will not become effective until after March 1, 2012. Accordingly, the entities affected by this rule and the public have no need to be made aware of or adjust to this rule by delaying its effectiveness for 30 days. The primary reason for delaying the effectiveness of federal regulations is not present, and, therefore, such a delay would serve no public purpose. On the other hand, it would be contrary to the public interest if this rule does not become effective on November 10, 2012, because the previously established trip allocations for the DMV would become
For the reason above, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries also finds good cause under section 553(d) of the APA to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
NMFS has consulted with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and due to the circumstances described above this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior public comment.
The EA prepared for the initial emergency rule analyzed the impacts of the emergency specifications for the duration of a year (Environmental Assessment Emergency Action to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP: Closure of the Delmarva Scallop Access Area for 2012; March 2011). Therefore, the impacts of this emergency action extension have been analyzed, and are within the scope of the Finding of No Significant Impact.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(v)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 96 hours. This action is necessary to fully use the 2012 total allowable catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 19, 2012, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 23, 2012. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., November 5, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0204, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 15, 2012 (77 FR 64240, October 19, 2012).
As of October 17, 2012, NMFS has determined that approximately 1,500 metric tons of pollock remain in the directed fishing allowance for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2012 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 96 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 23, 2012. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of the directed pollock fishery in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 17, 2012.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow pollock fishery in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until November 5, 2012.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2012 total allowable catch of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI has been reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 19, 2012, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2012.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2012 total allowable catch (TAC) of “other rockfish” Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 485 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2012 TAC of “other rockfish” in the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other rockfish” in the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of “other rockfish” in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 18, 2012.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Princeton, KY to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures serving the Princeton-Caldwell County Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before December 10, 2012.
Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2011-1444; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-46, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-1444; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-46) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-1444; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-46. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Princeton, KY providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV GPS standard instrument approach procedures for Princeton-Caldwell County Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is required for the safety and management of IFR operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the Princeton-Caldwell County Airport.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 (Transmission Vegetation Management), submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. The proposed Reliability Standard would expand the applicability of the standard to include overhead transmission lines that are operated below 200 kV, if they are either an element of an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit or an element of a Major WECC Transfer Path. In addition, the proposed Reliability Standard incorporates a new minimum annual vegetation inspection requirement, and incorporates new minimum vegetation clearance distances into the text of the standard.
The Commission also proposes to approve the three definitions, the implementation plan and the Violation Severity Levels associated with the proposed Reliability Standard. Finally, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC revise the Violation Risk Factor for Requirement R2, and approve the remainder of the Violation Risk Factors.
Comments are due December 24, 2012.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 has a number of features that make it an improvement over the Version 1 standard. For example, like Version 1, the proposed Reliability Standard would apply to all overhead transmission lines operated at or above 200 kV, but unlike Version 1, it would explicitly apply to any lower voltage overhead transmission line that is either an element of an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) or an element of a Major WECC Transfer Path.
3. A recurring cause in many blackouts has been vegetation-related outages. In fact one of the initiating causes of the 2003 Northeast blackout was inadequate vegetation management practices that led to tree contact.
4. We also propose to approve the three new or revised definitions associated with the proposed Reliability Standard for inclusion in NERC's Glossary. Specifically, we propose to approve the changes in the definition of “Right-of-Way (ROW)” and “Vegetation Inspection,” as well as the addition of the term “Minimum Vegetation Clearance Distance (MVCD)” as defined in NERC's petition. We also propose to approve NERC's implementation plan for FAC-003-2.
5. While we believe that the proposed Reliability Standard will enhance reliability by requiring sub-200 kV transmission lines that are elements of an IROL or Major WECC Transfer Path to comply with its requirements, we seek comment on how NERC will ensure that IROLs are properly designated, as discussed in detail below. In addition, while we agree that a number of the proposed modifications clarify and make more explicit the transmission owner's obligations, we seek comment with regard to the enforceability of certain provisions.
6. We do not believe, however, that NERC has adequately supported the assignment of a “medium” Violation Risk Factor to Requirement R2, which pertains to preventing vegetation encroachments into the MVCD of transmission lines operated at 200 kV and above, but which are
7. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
8. Currently-effective Reliability Standard FAC-003-1 is applicable to transmission owners. The requirements of the Version 1 standard apply to (1) all transmission lines operated at 200 kV or above, and (2) lower-voltage lines designated as “critical to the reliability of the electric system” by a Regional Entity.
9. Currently-effective FAC-003-1 contains four requirements. Requirement R1 requires each transmission owner to prepare, and keep current, a transmission vegetation management program (TVMP) that includes,
10. Requirement R2 of the Version 1 standard requires that each transmission owner develop and implement an “annual plan for vegetation management work,” allowing flexibility to adjust to “changing conditions.” Pursuant to Requirement R3, transmission owners must report quarterly to the relevant Regional Entity “sustained transmission line outages * * * caused by vegetation.” Requirement R4 requires the Regional Entity to report the outage information to NERC.
11. On March 16, 2007, in Order No. 693, the Commission approved 83 of 107 proposed Reliability Standards pursuant to FPA section 215(d), including currently-effective FAC-003-1.
12. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that preceded Order No. 693, the Commission proposed two directives requiring modification of NERC's proposed standard pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA.
13. The Commission instead required NERC to address a modification to the applicability of the standard through its Standards development process, directing NERC to “modify [FAC-003-1] to apply to Bulk-Power System transmission lines that have an impact on reliability as determined by the ERO.”
14. Similarly, while the Commission decided not to require NERC to submit a modification to FAC-003-1 to incorporate a minimum vegetation inspection cycle as part of Order No. 693, the Commission noted that it “continues to be concerned with leaving complete discretion to the transmission owners in determining inspection cycles.
15. With respect to minimum vegetation clearances distances, the Commission approved FAC-003-1's general approach and “reaffirm[ed] its interpretation that FAC-003-1 requires sufficient clearances to prevent outages due to vegetation management practices under all applicable conditions.”
16. Finally, the Commission directed NERC to address certain commenters' suggestion that, for purposes of the FAC-003 Reliability Standard, rights-of-way should be defined to encompass the required clearance area, and not the entire legal right-of-way, particularly where the legal right-of-way may greatly exceed the area needed for effective vegetation management.
17. In its petition, NERC maintains that proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 is just and reasonable, as the proposal meets or exceeds each of the criteria the Commission has identified for evaluating a proposed Reliability Standard.
18. Further, NERC maintains that proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 represents an improvement over the currently-effective standard, as FAC-003-2 enhances reliability, facilitates enforceability, and preserves necessary flexibility for transmission owners to address local vegetation conditions.
The probability of a flashover, given a drop in voltage to 85% of the `Critical Flashover Voltage (CFO),' is roughly .135% (or approximately 10
However, this is not the only event being considered when attempting to model the probability of a vegetation flashover. The probability of achieving a maximum switching overvoltage (“Peak Voltage”) in excess of the CFO must also be considered. This is shown on page 40 in equation 6 of the Technical Reference Document, and is specified there as roughly 0.135% (also approximately 10
In other words, the conditional probability of flashover given that the 85% CFO has been exceeded is approximately 10
19. NERC states that proposed FAC-003-2 continues to give transmission owners the necessary discretion to determine how to achieve the required clearances,
20. NERC states that proposed FAC-003-2 was designed to address directives from Order No. 693, including the directives requiring that NERC address proposed modifications to expand the applicability of FAC-003-1, evaluate and consider specific proposals made by parties commenting on FAC-003-1, develop compliance audit procedures to identify appropriate inspection cycles, define the minimum clearances needed to avoid sustained vegetation-related outages applicable to transmission lines crossing both federal and non-federal land, and address suggestions that rights-of-way should be defined to encompass required clearance areas only. NERC also explains that proposed FAC-003-2 is one of the first Reliability Standards developed using NERC's “results-based” approach and, therefore, includes some restructuring of the standard to focus on completing objectives and achieving goals, as well as to ensure that enforcement is undertaken in a consistent and non-preferential manner.
21. NERC proposes an implementation plan for FAC-003-2.
22. Accordingly, NERC requests that the Commission approve proposed FAC-003-2 and the associated Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels. NERC requests as an effective date for the Reliability Standard, “the first day of the first calendar quarter that is twelve months following the effective date of a Final Rule in this docket.”
23. The proposed Reliability Standard includes seven requirements.
24.
25. NERC has bifurcated the basic requirement to prevent encroachment into the MVCDs. Requirement R1 applies to IROL elements and Major WECC Transfer Path elements and is assigned a high Violation Risk Factor. Requirement R2 sets forth the same substantive requirements but pertains to non-IROL and non-Major WECC Transfer Path elements and is assigned a medium Violation Risk Factor. NERC explains that it bifurcated the requirement to “eliminate commingling of higher risk reliability objectives and lesser risk reliability objectives.”
26. In addition, NERC has included a footnote describing certain conditions or scenarios, outside the transmission owner's control, where an encroachment would be exempt from Requirements R1 and R2, including natural disasters and certain human or animal activity.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32. NERC explains in its petition that certain requirements in the currently-effective Reliability Standard have not been translated into a requirement in the proposed standard. In particular, NERC notes that the Version 1 standard's reporting requirements, R3 and R4, have been moved into the compliance section of proposed standard FAC-003-2.
33. In addition, NERC acknowledges that the proposed standard no longer contains a requirement that personnel involved in the design and implementation of a vegetation management program have appropriate qualifications and training (currently set out in sub-requirement R1.3).
34. NERC is also seeking to revise the definitions of Right-of-Way (ROW) and Vegetation Inspection, and to add a new definition for MVCD.
35. NERC explains in its petition how it will approach enforcement of each Requirement under FAC-003-2, noting that each Requirement has an associated compliance measure that identifies what is required and how the Requirement will be enforced. NERC explains,
36. NERC asserts that it has addressed seven directives in Order No. 693 regarding NERC's vegetation management standard.
37. As NERC explains in its petition, the Standard Drafting Team applied the “Gallet equation” to derive the MVCDs set forth in FAC-003-2. NERC describes the Gallet equation as a “well-known method of computing the required strike distance for proper insulation coordination.”
38. The Commission's Office of Electric Reliability retained the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to undertake an “analysis of the mathematics and documentation of the technical justification behind the application of the Gallet equation and the assumptions used in the technical reference paper [Exh. A of NERC's petition].”
39. PNNL's final
40. While the PNNL Report points out benefits of the use of the Gallet equation, it raises questions about potential inconsistencies in NERC's filing.
41. The PNNL Report further asserts that without NERC's assumption “that the gap between a power line and growing vegetation is stronger (by 30%) than the reference gap used in developing the Gallet equation,” the minimum distances calculated would be about 50% larger.
42. The PNNL Report also asserts that “[t]hough there is no obvious way to relate tower clearance to vegetation clearance,” the proposed MVCDs in FAC-003-2 are small when compared to transmission tower design clearances:
The values for tower clearance for a line at 500 kV in the Transmission Line Reference Book range from 8.3 ft. to over 17 ft. The NERC filing requires a gap less than 6 ft for the same voltage, even at high altitude. There is no reason to suppose that a tree could safely be allowed so much closer to a line (less than 6 ft) than a tower.
43. Nine sets of comments were filed in response to the PNNL Report, with timely submissions made by NERC, the Canadian Electricity Association, American Electric Power (AEP), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor), Kansas City Power & Light and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (KCP&L), Arizona Public Service Company (APS), and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River), as well as a joint submission by the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the Electric Power Supply Association (collectively, the Trade Associations).
44. In its comments, NERC asserts that the PNNL Report “(a) improperly juxtaposes data included in the FAC-003-2 Reliability Standard; (b) disregards NERC's justification regarding the selection of transient overvoltage calculations; (c) fails to consider joint probability of independent events when analyzing flashover probability; and (d) disagrees with the choice of gap factor for vegetation without providing any empirical evidence, scientific reasoning or expert consensus on what an appropriate gap factor should be.”
45. With regard to the assertion in the PNNL Report that there is no evidence that statistics relating to tower design are usable with vegetation, NERC explains the rationale for its use of the Gallet equation in some detail (discussed further in PP 47-48 below), and notes that the PNNL Report “disagrees with [NERC's] choice of gap factor for vegetation without providing any empirical evidence, scientific reasoning, or expert consensus on what an appropriate gap factor should be.”
46. With regard to PNNL's assertion that “inconsistencies are found in NERC's filing”, NERC states that the “inconsistencies” identified by the PNNL Report in NERC's Technical Reference Document result from PNNL erroneously comparing two separate sets
47. With respect to the gap factor, NERC maintains that it relied on a widely known and regarded source for determining the appropriate gap factor, which indicates that an appropriate gap factor for a conductor-to-lateral structure configuration is in the range of 1.25 to 1.40.
48. NERC then states that use of a gap factor of 1.3 is conservative:
It is worth noting that the gap factors for many shapes that could approximate vegetation are even higher than the 1.3 used in FAC-003-2, with ranges that include values as high as 1.6. Hileman notes that in regards to the substation environment (which includes many objects, conducting and non-conducting, with varying shapes and configurations): “Practically, the lowest gap factor in the substations is 1.3, which normally is conservative.”
[T]he [SDT] did not rely on any specific properties inherent in trees, rather, the [SDT] conservatively assumed that vegetation had the same properties as metal. The [SDT] elected to use the “typical” value for “conductor to lateral structure.” Unlike the other examples given, which specify a “typical” value that is equivalent to the midpoint of the range, this value (1.3) is within the conservative third of the range (1.25-1.4).
49. In response to the assertion in the PNNL Report that “[t]here is no reason to suppose that a tree could safely be allowed so much closer to a line * * * than a tower” (see P 42,
[C]are must be taken when making an interpretation of the tabular data, as the original survey participants may have answered the questions in a general context involving multiple structure designs. The final structure design parameters provided in the Red Book include the CFO gap plus other factors (such as insulator geometry, personnel safety and extreme lightning events). Accordingly, they should not be considered the final word with regard to Vegetation Management, as those distances were established to address a number of other issues. FAC-003-2 is not intended to mandate the parameters for all future line designs; it is focused solely on the distances necessary to mitigate the risk of vegetation related outages.
50. In addition to providing a response to the technical issues raised by the PNNL Report, NERC argues that the Commission is obligated under FPA section 215(d)(2) to give due weight to NERC's technical expertise with respect to the content of proposed standards.
51. Trade Associations, Duke, Oncor and other commenters support NERC's technical analysis. AEP and Oncor agree with NERC that the PNNL report contains inappropriate comparisons of data NERC presented in its petition and supporting materials, and that if NERC's Gallet-generated numbers are compared to the distances calculated under IEEE-516, the “clearances determined by the two calculations are in fact closely aligned.”
52. KCP&L comments that the PNNL Report should have “included discussion regarding a correction factor
53. APS questions whether either the Gallet equation or the IEEE standard incorporated in currently-effective FAC-003-1 “provides a demonstrable indicator of the flash-over distance between conductors and ground vegetation * * *, ”
54. Salt River supports the PNNL Report's analysis, noting that it has questioned the applicability of the Gallet equation for vegetation clearances throughout the development of FAC-003-2. Salt River further agrees that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a tree could safely be allowed much closer to a line than a tower. Finally, Salt River supports the experimental verification of any proposed guidelines regarding required vegetation clearances.
55. On May 4, 2012, Commission staff issued data requests to NERC. NERC submitted a timely response to the data requests on May 25, 2012, addressing matters such as the correct understanding and enforceability of certain provisions of the proposed Reliability Standard. Relevant elements of NERC's response to the data requests are discussed further below.
56. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we propose to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, including the associated new and revised definitions and implementation plan, as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. As discussed in Section A below, we believe the proposed Reliability Standard will enhance reliability and satisfies a number of the outstanding directives from Order No. 693. In addition, we seek further comment on certain aspects of the proposed Reliability Standard. Accordingly, we discuss the following matters below: (A) proposal to approve FAC-003-2; (B) applicability of the standard to sub-200 kV transmission lines; (C) clearance distances; (D) appropriate Violation Risk Factor for Requirement R2; (E) enforcement issues; (F) inclusion of reporting obligations as a compliance measure; and (G) proposed definitions.
57. We believe that proposed standard FAC-003-2 is an improvement over the currently-effective Version 1 standard, will support vegetation management practices that can effectively protect against vegetation-related transmission outages, and satisfies a number of the outstanding directives from Order No. 693. As discussed earlier, NERC has explained how many of the Requirements improve upon the currently-effective Version 1 standard. In support of our proposal to approve FAC-003-2, we highlight several of these improvements. For example, in accordance with our directives in Order No. 693, as discussed further below, NERC has expanded the applicability of the Reliability Standard so that it now applies not only to all transmission lines above 200 kV, but also to transmission lines operated
58. In addition, NERC has incorporated minimum clearance distances into the text of the Reliability Standard, and no longer includes a required clearance distance based on distances set by IEEE-516 which, as indicated in Order No. 693, served a different purpose than vegetation management. Proposed FAC-003-2 requires a transmission owner to prevent an encroachment into the MVCD, even if the encroachment does not result in a flashover or fault. As NERC explains, “FAC-003-2 presents a `zero-tolerance' approach to vegetation management, explicitly treating any encroachment into the MVCD * * * as a violation * * *.”
59. While the Commission did not require NERC to adopt a minimum inspection cycle as part of Order No. 693, the Commission did express concern both prior to and as part of Order No. 693 that inspection cycles should not be left entirely to the discretion of the transmission owner. Accordingly, in Order No. 693, the Commission stated that:
The Commission continues to be concerned with leaving complete discretion to the transmission owners in determining inspection cycles, which limits the effectiveness of the Reliability Standard. Accordingly, the Commission directs the ERO to develop compliance audit procedures * * * which would identify appropriate inspection cycles based on local factors. These inspections cycles are to be used in compliance auditing of FAC-003-1 by the ERO or Regional Entity to ensure such inspection cycles and vegetation management requirements are properly met by the responsible entities.
60. Thus, based on the overall benefits of proposed FAC-003-2, we propose to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 and propose to direct a change in the VRF level assigned to Requirement R2, as discussed further below.
61. In considering whether to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, we give due weight to NERC's technical expertise. In light of our proposal to approve the proposed Reliability Standard, commenters' suggestions that we have failed to give due weight to NERC's technical expertise are moot. Below, however, we will discuss our substantive consideration of the proposed minimum clearance distances derived based on application of the Gallet equation and certain technical points raised by the PNNL Report and commenters.
62. The currently-effective Reliability Standard, FAC-003-1, is applicable to any transmission line operated at 200 kV and above, and to any line of lesser voltage designated by a Regional Entity
We will not direct NERC to submit a modification to the general limitation on applicability as proposed in the NOPR. However we will require the ERO to address the proposed modification through its Reliability Standards development process. As explained in the NOPR, the Commission is concerned that the bright-line applicability threshold of 200 kV will exclude a significant number of transmission lines that could impact Bulk-Power System reliability * * *. We support the suggestions by Progress Energy, SERC and MISO to limit applicability to lower voltage lines associated with IROL and these suggestions should be part of the input to the Reliability Standards development process.
[Other commenters] raise concerns about the cost of implementing this Reliability Standard if the applicability is expanded to lower-voltage facilities. We recognize these concerns * * *and we direct the ERO to develop an acceptable definition that covers facilities that impact reliability but balances extending the applicability of this standard against unreasonably increasing the burden on transmission owners.
63. We believe that NERC has satisfied this directive by considering the various concerns raised by the commenters as noted in Order No. 693, and ultimately by revising the Reliability Standard so that it applies to not only to lines that are 200 kV and above, but also to any sub-200 kV transmission line that is an element of an IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path. We believe that NERC has supported its approach to the expansion in applicability, noting that proposed FAC-003-2 provides specific criteria to determine applicability for sub-200 kV transmission lines. In addition, NERC has used an impact-based approach for determining applicability rather than a bright-line threshold as a means of balancing the potential increased burden on transmission owners under a standard with expanded applicability.
64. While we view the modified applicability as a significant improvement, there are two aspects on which we seek comment. First, section 4.2.2 of proposed FAC-003-2 provides that the standard applies to overhead transmission lines operated below 200 kV identified as an IROL under NERC Standard FAC-014 by the planning coordinator. However, FAC-014-2 does not explicitly require the planning coordinator to provide information about IROL status to transmission owners. Further, IROLs may change with changing system conditions. Given these factors, we seek a better understanding of how FAC-003-2 will be applied to facilities designated as IROLs. For example, we seek comment on how information regarding IROL status will be transmitted to transmission owners that must comply with FAC-003-2 and how transmission owners can effectively implement vegetation management per FAC-003-2 given that such programs are generally implemented annually and a change in IROL status can take place at any time given changing system conditions.
65. Second, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed that the proposed Reliability Standard apply to “Bulk-Power System transmission lines that have an impact on reliability as determined by the ERO.”
66. We find that NERC has relied on a reasonable method for setting the MVCD, and has supported the inputs and assumptions it used to develop those minimum clearance distances, at least until such time that empirical data is developed and is available for use in setting MVCDs. We note that the MVCDs are roughly equivalent to, or slightly larger than, the minimum Clearance 2 distances in the current standard.
67. NERC explains that the MVCD is the result of a conservative gap factor. Further, the MVCD clearances represent only one aspect of proposed FAC-003-2. The MVCD establishes a “
1. The maintenance strategy used (such as minimum vegetation-to-conductor distance or maximum vegetation height)
2. The work methods that the Transmission Owner uses to control vegetation;
3. A stated Vegetation Inspection frequency;
4. An annual work plan.
68. NERC also explains that a conductor's position in space at any point in time continuously changes in reaction to a variety of factors, such as the amount of thermal and physical loading, air temperature, wind velocity and direction, and precipitation. The following diagram is a cross-section view of a single conductor at a given point along the span that illustrates six possible conductor positions due to movement resulting from thermal and mechanical loading:
69. Finally, as NERC explains in its Technical Reference Document, transmission owners will have to clear vegetation to levels “well away from” the minimum spark-over zone:
As the conductor moves through various positions [due to thermal loading and physical loading], a spark-over zone surrounding the conductor moves with it. * * * At the time of making a field observation, however, it is very difficult to precisely know where the conductor is in relation to its wide range of all possible positions. Therefore, Transmission Owners must adopt maintenance approaches that account for this dynamic situation.
In order to maintain adequate separation between vegetation and transmission line conductors, the Transmission Owner must craft a maintenance strategy that keeps vegetation well away from the spark-over zone mentioned above.
70. Thus, while clearances required at the time of maintenance may vary from one region or area to another, our proposed approval of FAC-003-2 is based on our understanding, which is drawn directly from NERC's statements in its petition, that transmission operators will manage vegetation to distances beyond the MVCD to ensure no encroachment into the MVCD.
71. As discussed above, the PNNL Report identifies specific potential concerns regarding NERC's approach to calculating minimum clearance values, such as the appropriate “gap factor” to apply. In its response to the PNNL Report, NERC explains the Standard Drafting Team's approach to reach a 1.3 gap factor and how it considered the matters raised in the PNNL Report. For example, with regard to the gap factor, NERC indicates that the drafting team relied on an authoritative source and chose a conservative gap factor value.
72. Notwithstanding our approval of the proposed MVCD, we remain concerned, as indicated in Order No. 693, over the lack of empirical data with regard to actual flashover distances observed through testing or analysis of flashover events.
73. NERC further states that “the results of those [EPRI] tests may be useful to the industry for future reviews of this NERC standard.”
74. Requirement R1 of currently-effective Reliability Standard FAC-003-1 requires a transmission owner to maintain a “transmission vegetation management program” pursuant to which a transmission owner must maintain certain clearance distances between applicable transmission lines and vegetation. Requirement R1 of the Version 1 standard is assigned a “high” Violation Risk Factor.
75. Under FAC-003-2, NERC proposes to bifurcate the assigned Violation Risk Factor levels, depending on the type of transmission line involved. NERC proposes to assign a high Violation Risk Factor to Requirement R1, which requires transmission owners to “manage vegetation to prevent encroachments into the MVCD of its applicable line(s) which are either an element of an IROL, or an element of a Major WECC Transfer Path.” Requirement R2 of the proposed Reliability Standard, which is assigned a medium Violation Risk Factor, provides that “[e]ach Transmission Owner shall manage vegetation to prevent encroachments into the MVCD of its applicable line(s) which are
76. NERC maintains that the assignment of a medium Violation Risk Factor for Requirement R2 is appropriate pursuant to existing Violation Risk Factor definitions and guidelines. NERC maintains that “[l]ines that are not IROLs and are not Major WECC Transfer Paths by definition have less potential for leading to cascading, separation or instability.”
77. Based on the information provided in NERC's Petition, it is not clear that NERC has adequately supported a medium Violation Risk Factor designation for Requirement R2. The Commission-approved definition of a “medium” risk requirement is:
A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the bulk electric system, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the bulk electric system. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
The definition of a high Violation Risk Factor is:
A requirement that, if violated,
78. Moreover, transmission lines not designated as an IROL element (or the equivalent) have been instrumental in causing major blackouts, including the August 2003 Northeast blackout. In that case, at least three of the four 345 kV lines (Star-S Canton, Harding-Chamberlin, and Hanna-Juniper) that tripped due to tree contact were not monitored as a flowgate, which could be viewed as the technical equivalent of an IROL at that time.
79. Likewise, an August 10, 1996 blackout in WECC began with the trip of a 500 kV line (due to a tree contact) that was not identified as part of WECC's relevant path catalog at the time, i.e., the line was not identified as one of the critical paths subject to WECC monitoring and oversight similar to that required for a Major WECC Transfer Path today.
80. Pursuant to proposed Requirements R1 and R2, transmission owners must “manage vegetation to prevent encroachments into the MVCD of its applicable lines,” and any encroachment is considered a violation of these requirements regardless of whether it results in a sustained outage. NERC explains that it bifurcated the requirement to eliminate commingling of higher risk reliability objectives and lesser risk reliability objectives. However, analysis of the two aforementioned system disturbances suggests that lines that are not designated as an IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path at a given point in time (i.e., proposed Requirement R2 lines), may still be associated with higher-risk consequences, including outages that can lead to Cascading.
81. Accordingly, pursuant to our Violation Risk Factor guidelines, which require, among other things, consistency within a Reliability Standard (guideline 2) and consistency between requirements that have similar reliability objectives (guideline 3), we propose to modify the Violation Risk Factor assigned to Requirement R2 from medium to high. However, in its comments on this NOPR, NERC is free to provide additional explanation than provided thus far to demonstrate the lines identified in Requirement R2 are properly assigned a medium Violation Risk Factor.
82. In its petition, NERC describes its approach to enforcement with respect to each of the Reliability Standard's requirements, noting that each requirement is associated with a specific measure for evaluating compliance and Violation Severity Level guidance. With respect to Requirements R1 and R2, NERC explains that the associated measure sets out the types of evidence or documentation that will be required to show that vegetation was managed to prevent encroachments.
83. NERC acknowledges that proposed Requirements R1 and R2 include a general footnote (Footnote 1) describing multiple conditions exempting a transmission owner from these requirements so as not to be held accountable for an encroachment (e.g., a natural disaster or a “major storm” as defined either by the transmission owner or an applicable regulatory body). However, NERC explains that this exception would only apply to situations that are beyond the control of the transmission owner or its duly appointed delegate.
84. With respect to the Requirement R3 obligation that a transmission owner document its approach to vegetation management, NERC explains that the transmission owner must not only demonstrate that its program takes into account “the movement of the conductor, as well as growth rate, control method, and inspection frequency,” it must also provide “documentation that is sufficient to satisfy the auditor that the information contained in that documentation is sufficient that the Transmission Owner can use it to prevent encroachment into the MVCD.”
85. With respect to the obligation in Requirement R4 to provide notice to the applicable control center of a confirmed vegetation condition likely to cause a fault, NERC again explains that auditors may have to use judgment based on the specific circumstances, “but it is expected that an entity that does not make this reporting a top priority would be in violation of the standard.”
86. With respect to Requirement R5, NERC explains that in the case where a transmission owner is prevented from taking actions needed to prevent an encroachment into the MVCD, the transmission owner must de-energize or de-rate the line to reduce the MVCD as needed to avoid a violation, and must show proof that it has taken that action if needed.
87. With respect to Requirement R7 covering vegetation work plans, NERC notes that the requirement does not explicitly require the creation of such a plan, but states that “entities will not be able to comply with the requirement without having a documented plan.”
88. In addition, NERC has identified what it expects a transmission owner's vegetation management program to contain. See P 67,
89. The proposed Reliability Standard, as filed, includes a “Guideline and Technical Basis” document that further explains NERC's expectations on how the requirements will be enforced and how compliance can be demonstrated. For example, with respect to Requirement R3, NERC explains in greater detail that the documentation showing the transmission owner's approach to vegetation management must provide “the basis for evaluating the intent, allocation of appropriate resources, and the competency of the Transmission Owner in managing vegetation.”
90. We support NERC's overall efforts to develop explicit, verifiable measures for each requirement in order to allow for consistent, non-preferential enforcement.
91. As noted above, NERC has provided information we believe is useful to an overall understanding of the intent of the standard and how it will be interpreted and enforced, including the information that NERC has provided in its petition, in the Guideline and Technical Basis document that is attached as part of Exhibit A to the petition, and in its May 25, 2012 responses to the Commission staff's data requests. We believe these additional resources, while not setting forth requirements or themselves determining whether compliance has occurred, provide guidance with respect to uniform compliance with the proposed Reliability Standard.
92. In addition, Requirement R4 requires transmission owners to notify “without intentional time delay” the control center with switching authority for the applicable line when the transmission owner has confirmed the
93. Reliability Standard FAC-003-1, Requirements R3 and R4, require quarterly reporting to the Regional Entities of sustained transmission outages caused by vegetation. While the proposed Reliability Standard moves these reporting requirements to the “Additional Compliance Information” section as a Periodic Data Submittal, NERC maintains that the reporting requirements remain enforceable under NERC's Rules of Procedure. Among other things, NERC states that it and Regional Entities can require entities to provide “such information as is necessary to monitor compliance with the reliability standards” under Section 401.3 of NERC's Rules of Procedure.
94. We agree that pursuant to section 401.3 of NERC's Rules of Procedure, NERC and the Regional Entities can require transmission owners to make quarterly reports of sustained transmission outages because these reports provide information relating to compliance with the requirements of proposed FAC-003-2. This rule states: “All Bulk Power System owners, operators and users shall provide to NERC and the applicable Regional Entity such information as is necessary to monitor compliance with the Reliability Standards.” Further, a periodic data submittal is a requirement to provide compliance information pursuant to section 3.6 of NERC's Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program.
95. We propose to accept the new definition of Minimum Vegetation Clearance Distance and the revised definitions of Vegetation Inspection and Right-of-Way for inclusion in the NERC Glossary of Terms. However, we seek further comment regarding the proposed revision to the definition of Right-of-Way, as discussed below.
96. As noted above, we directed NERC in Order No. 693 to consider FirstEnergy's suggestion that “rights-of-way be defined to encompass the required clearance areas instead of the corresponding legal rights, and that the standards should not require clearing the entire right-of-way when the required clearance for an existing line does not take up the entire right-of-way.”
The corridor of land under a transmission line(s) needed to operate the line(s). The width of the corridor is established by engineering or construction standards as documented in either construction documents, pre-2007 vegetation maintenance records, or by the blowout standard in effect when the line was built. The ROW width in no case exceeds the Transmission Owner's legal rights but may be less based on the aforementioned criteria.
97. Under Requirements R1.1 and R2.1 of the proposed Reliability Standard, encroachments into the MVCD observed in real time would be violations of R1 or R2 regardless of whether they cause a sustained outage and regardless of whether the vegetation is within the Right-of-Way as defined under FAC-003-2. However, under proposed Requirements R1.2, R1.3 and R1.4 and the corresponding sub-requirements of R2, fall-ins, blow-ins and grow-ins that cause a sustained outage are violations of the proposed standard only if they occur from
98. In response to the Commission staff data requests, NERC has provided information suggesting that encroachments from within the legal right-of-way (i.e., the area within the transmission owner's control) would, in most cases, still be violations of FAC-003-2, even if the Right-of-Way is more narrowly defined. In response to Commission staff's question about a transmission owner's obligation to respond when it identifies a vegetation condition that might encroach into the MVCD if the vegetation is located outside of the Right-of-Way (as proposed under the new definition), but within the transmission owner's
1. A grow-in from a tree or the tree wall into the ROW. The definition of ROW provides for “The corridor of land under a transmission line(s) needed to operate the line(s).” Therefore, in order to operate the line consistent with its rating, the ROW includes space for “blowout” of the lines within the context of the MVCD. With respect to the grow in of a tree from outside the ROW as defined but within the legal ROW, the TO will use vegetations [sic] inspections to identify “those vegetation conditions under the Transmission Owner's control that are likely to pose a hazard to the line(s) prior to the next planned maintenance or inspection.” In the event, an inspection shows that a tree has already grown inside the MVCD, the TO would be in violation of R1 item 1 or R2 item 1. Another way to consider this issue is that tree growing into the MVCD from the side is no different from a tree growing into the MVCD from below the line.
2. A fall-in of danger timber (dead, diseased or dying) from outside of the ROW but within the TO's control. The definition of inspection covers vegetation “* * * vegetation conditions on a Right-of-Way and those vegetation conditions
99. NERC distinguishes these cases from a case where a fall-in occurs from a
100. We agree with NERC that in the situation in which a fall-in occurs from a green or healthy tree outside the corridor based Right-of-Way, but within the ROW controlled by the transmission owner, there would be no violation under the revised Reliability Standard. Moreover, we note that the proposed Reliability Standard does not require clear-cutting along the right-of-way, but instead gives the transmission owner the flexibility to adopt an appropriate vegetation management strategy to comply with FAC-003-2 based on the particular circumstances for a given line. As NERC notes in its Technical Reference Document, different vegetation management strategies may be appropriate for different areas, and FAC-003-2 gives transmission owners the option to adopt strategies to comply with FAC-003-2 that encourage active vegetation management and Integrated Vegetation Management rather than clear-cutting.
101. However, we seek further comment on NERC's enforcement approach with respect to a fall-in by “danger timber” (dead, diseased or dying trees or limbs) from within the transmission owner's legally-owned and controlled right-of-way. Specifically, NERC indicates in its data responses (restated in P 98,
102. We also note that the proposed definition of Right-of-Way includes guidance as to how the transmission owner may define its Right-of-Way, requiring that it be based on construction documents, pre-2007 vegetation maintenance records, or as-built blowout standards. We seek comment on how the identified guidance in the new definition will be used: (1) by the transmission owner to establish criteria to determine an appropriate Right-of-Way; and (2) by auditors to establish criteria to determine compliance with the proposed standard.
103. We propose to approve the Implementation Plan as submitted in Ex. B of NERC's petition.
104. The following collection of information contained in the Proposed Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
105. The Commission is proposing to submit these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
106. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, which includes certain requirements to create and maintain records related to a transmission owner's vegetation management work plan and its performance of inspections. Because transmission owners have vegetation management plans they follow per the existing transmission vegetation management standard (FAC-003-1), and must compile and maintain similar records and provide similar reports under the existing standard, the proposed revisions are expected to have a minor impact on the burden of record-keeping and reporting. In addition, by allowing greater flexibility compared to the currently-effective Version 1 standard with regard to the materials that must be maintained for a vegetation management plan or strategy, the NERC proposal may prove to reduce the reporting burden for some entities.
107.
108. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
109. For submitting comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate, please send your comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
110. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
111. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 will be applicable to overhead transmission lines operated at 200 kV or higher, and, for the first time, to transmission lines operated at less than 200 kV if they are elements of an IROL as defined by FAC-014 or elements of a Major WECC Transfer Path. In addition, Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 will require annual vegetation inspections for all applicable lines, which could result in an increase in annual inspections performed for a subset of transmission owners.
112. Comparison of the NERC Compliance Registry with data submitted to the Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that, of the 330 transmission owners in the United States registered by NERC, 127 of these entities qualify as small businesses. The Commission estimates that the 127 transmission owners that qualify as small businesses will incur increased costs associated solely with a one-time review of the proposed standard and modification to existing plans and procedures. As described in the information collection section of this NOPR, the estimated cost
113. Further, some transmission owners that qualify as small entities will incur costs associated with an increase in frequency of inspections. As indicated above, currently-effective FAC-003-1 requires periodic vegetation management inspections of transmission line rights-of-way at an interval determined by each transmission owner. Requirement R6 of the proposed standard would require each transmission owners to inspect 100 percent of the transmission lines at least once per year. Based on a review of available information, including data provided in response to a 2004 vegetation management study performed by Commission staff,
114. Based on the above, the Commission does not consider the cost of the NERC proposal to be a significant economic impact for small entities because it should not represent a significant percentage of an affected small entity's operating budget.
115. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that the new or revised requirements set forth in proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
116. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
117. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due December 24, 2012. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12-4-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
118. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
119. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
120. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
121. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
122. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
123. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Electric power; Electric utilities; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Comments are due December 24, 2012.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
David Huff (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Security, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (301) 665-1603,
Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8408,
1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. We take this action based on government-sponsored studies and NERC studies that conclude that GMD events can have an adverse, wide-area impact on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.
3. The seriousness of the risk posed by GMDs to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System was expressed at a Technical Conference held on April 30, 2012.
4. Currently, GMD vulnerabilities are not adequately addressed in the Reliability Standards.
5. GMD events affect the Bulk-Power System by introducing geomagnetically-induced currents
6. Given the potentially severe, wide-spread impact to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System from GMD events and the absence of existing Reliability Standards to address it, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to file with the Commission for approval Reliability Standards that address this
7. We recognize that, depending on the results of the initial and ongoing assessments that would be required under this proposed rule, there could be substantial costs associated with some measures to protect against damage to the Bulk-Power System from GMDs.
8. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission to certify an ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.
9. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission has the authority, upon its own motion or upon complaint, to order the ERO to submit to the Commission a proposed Reliability Standard or a modification to a Reliability Standard that addresses a specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or modified Reliability Standard appropriate to carry out section 215 of the FPA.
10. The impact of GMDs on the Bulk-Power System has been evaluated in several government-sponsored studies and NERC reports. The EMP Commission issued reports assessing the threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack in 2004 and 2008, which also addressed the effects of geomagnetic storms on the electric power infrastructure.
11. The Commission conducted a staff-led Technical Conference on April 30, 2012 to discuss the effects of GMDs on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. NERC, government agencies, industry stakeholders, and other interested entities attended the Technical Conference and submitted post-Technical Conference comments.
12. The interaction of the Earth's magnetic field and solar events can cause low frequency GICs to flow along the surface of the Earth and in the oceans. Reliability issues arise when GICs enter the Bulk-Power System from the Earth. Since many Bulk-Power System transformers are grounded, the GIC appears as electrical current to the Bulk-Power System and flows through the ground connection and conductors, such as transformers and transmission lines.
13. GICs can cause transformer cores to become “saturated,” resulting in loss of reactive power (VARs), the introduction of harmonic distortions, and possible physical damage to the transformer.
14. The Oak Ridge Study identified factors that determine the severity of GMD events, including: (1) Location and strength of the underlying solar event; (2) ground conductivity in the affected locations (i.e., the geology of the location); (3) orientation of the transmission lines; (4) length of transmission lines; and (5) grid construction.
15. As discussed below, the Commission finds that there is a gap in the Reliability Standards regarding GMDs. Therefore, in order to carry out section 215 of the FPA, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to develop and file for approval Reliability Standards that address the potentially severe, wide-spread impact of GMD events on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.
16. We propose that the ERO develop and file the GMD Reliability Standards in two stages. In the first stage, within 90 days of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to file one or more Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to develop and implement operational procedures to mitigate the effects of GMDs consistent with the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. In the second stage, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to file one or more Reliability Standards, within six months of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding, that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to assess the impact of GMDs on Bulk-Power System equipment and the Bulk-Power System as a whole. Based on those assessments, the Reliability Standards would require owners and operators to develop and implement a plan so that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System equipment, or otherwise, will not occur as a result of a GMD. This plan cannot be limited to operational procedures or enhanced training alone, but should, subject to the needs indentified in the assessments, contain strategies for protecting against the potential impact of GMDs based on factors such as the age, condition, technical specifications, or location of specific equipment. These strategies could include automatically blocking geomagnetically induced currents from entering the Bulk-Power System, instituting specification requirements for new equipment, inventory management, and isolating certain equipment that is not cost effective to retrofit.
17. In proposing to direct the ERO to submit Reliability Standards that address the impact of GMD events on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, we are not proposing specific requirements or otherwise pre-judging what the ERO may eventually submit. Instead, we identify concerns that we believe should be addressed in any GMD Reliability Standards. We expect the ERO to support its proposed Reliability Standards and explain how they address the Commission's concerns.
18. Requiring operational procedures, while not a complete solution, constitutes a first step to addressing the GMD reliability gap because they can be implemented relatively quickly.
19. Operational procedures may help alleviate abnormal system conditions due to transformer absorption of reactive power during GMD events, helping to stabilize system voltage swings, and may potentially isolate some equipment from being damaged or misoperated. The NERC Interim GMD Report identifies examples of operational procedures to mitigate GMD events (i.e., the effects of GICs), including: reduction of equipment loading (e.g., by starting off-line generation), unloading the reactive load of operating generation, reductions of system voltage, and system and/or equipment isolation through reconfiguration of the transmission system.
20. While the proposed Reliability Standards should not necessarily specify what operational procedures must be adopted, the ERO should give owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System guidance as to what procedures have been or are expected to be effective in mitigating the effects of GMDs consistent with the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the proposed Reliability Standards should address the coordination of operational procedures among responsible entities across regions.
21. We do not propose to direct a specific implementation schedule for the proposed Reliability Standards, but the Commission encourages the ERO to require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to implement the required operational procedures 90 days after Commission approval of the Reliability Standards. Following implementation, the Commission proposes to require NERC to provide periodic reports assessing the effectiveness of the operational procedures in mitigating the effects of GMD events. In addition, NERC should periodically review the required operational procedures and recommend to owners and operators that they incorporate lessons-learned and new research findings.
22. In addition to developing Reliability Standards that require operational procedures during the first stage, the Commission also proposes to accept aspects of the “Initial Actions” proposal set forth in NERC's May 21, 2012 post-Technical Conference comments. Specifically, NERC proposed to “identify facilities most at-risk from severe geomagnetic disturbance” and to “conduct wide-area geomagnetic disturbance vulnerability assessment.”
23. To address GMDs comprehensively, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop, in a second stage, Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to conduct initial and on-going assessments of the potential impact of GMDs on Bulk-Power System equipment and on the Bulk-Power System as a whole. Based on those assessments, the Reliability Standards would require owners and operators to develop and implement a plan so that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System equipment, or otherwise, will not occur as a result of a GMD. This plan cannot be limited to operational procedures or enhanced training alone, but should, subject to the needs identified in the assessments, contain strategies for protecting against the potential impact of GMDs based on factors such as the age, condition, technical specifications, or location of specific equipment. These strategies could include automatically blocking geomagnetically induced currents from entering the Bulk-Power System, instituting specification requirements for new equipment, inventory management, and isolating certain equipment that is not cost effective to retrofit. While the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to submit the proposed second stage Reliability Standards within six months of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment on the feasibility of a six-month deadline.
24. We propose to direct the filing of these second stage GMD Reliability Standards because of two concerns with relying on operational procedures alone: (1) Owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System may not have enough time to initiate effective operating procedures after being warned of a GMD event; and (2) operational procedures may not prevent permanent damage to Bulk-Power System equipment.
25. We recognize that the NERC Interim GMD Report concludes that a prolonged blackout due to extensive
26. Below, we offer guidance on the assessments of Bulk-Power System vulnerability to GMDs and potential measures for automatically protecting critical or vulnerable components. In addition, recognizing the potential for substantial investments of time and resources to implement these Reliability Standards, we offer guidance on an implementation schedule, which will likely consist of an extended, multi-phase process. The Commission seeks comment from NERC and other interested entities on all aspects of this proposal.
27. The Commission proposes to direct the ERO to develop Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to conduct vulnerability assessments to determine how critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System components react to simulated GICs of varying intensities.
28. First, the Reliability Standards should contain uniform evaluation criteria for owners and operators to follow when conducting their assessments. As the Commission noted with respect to other reliability assessments, uniformity increases the accuracy of transmission system reliability assessments and consequently enhances overall reliability.
29. Second, the assessments should, through studies and simulations, evaluate the primary and secondary effects of GICs on Bulk-Power System transformers, including the effects of GICs originating from and passing to other regions.
30. Third, the assessments should evaluate the effects of GICs on other Bulk-Power System equipment, system operations, and system stability, including the anticipated loss of critical or vulnerable devices or elements resulting from GIC-related issues.
31. Fourth, in conjunction with assessments by owners and operators of their own Bulk-Power System components, wide-area or Regional assessments of GIC impacts should be performed. A severe GMD event can cause simultaneous stresses at multiple locations on the Bulk-Power System, potentially resulting in a multiple-outage event.
32. Fifth, the assessments should be periodically updated, taking into account new facilities, modifications to existing facilities, and new information, including new research on GMDs, to determine whether there are resulting changes in GMD impacts that require modifications to Bulk-Power System mitigation schemes.
33. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and other interested entities on all aspects of this proposal.
34. While we do not propose to require a particular solution in the second stage Reliability Standards to address GMDs, we expect that some assessments will demonstrate that automatic blocking is necessary in some instances. The Commission, above, proposes to direct the ERO to develop Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to develop and implement a plan so that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System equipment, or otherwise, will not occur as a result of a GMD. Automatic blocking measures address the major concerns with relying exclusively on operational procedures to mitigate GMDs (i.e., the short period of time to react to a GMD event and the potential consequences of not reacting fast enough). Blocking can prevent the flow of GICs through power transformers and the Bulk-Power System.
35. The Commission does not propose to direct the ERO to require a particular automatic blocking technology, where blocking is necessary. Instead, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to identify in the proposed Reliability Standards what would constitute appropriate automatic blocking measures. In defining what is an
36. The use of automatic blocking devices, such as transmission line series capacitors and transformer neutral blocking, are possible measures.
37. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and other interested entities on all aspects of this proposal.
38. The second stage Reliability Standards will likely require an extended, multi-phase implementation period given the time needed to conduct the required assessments and the time and cost of installing any required automatic protection measures. Although the Commission does not propose to direct the ERO to develop a specific implementation plan, we believe it would be appropriate for the proposed Reliability Standard to include an implementation schedule that requires owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to prioritize implementation so that components considered vital to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System are provided with any necessary automatic protection measures in the earliest phase of the plan.
39. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and other interested entities on an implementation plan.
40. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires each federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons, or contained in a rule of general applicability.
41. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
42. The Public Reporting Burden and cost related to the proposed rule in Docket No. RM12-22-000 are covered by, and already included in, the existing FERC-725, Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability (OMB Control No. 1902-0225). FERC-725 includes the ERO's overall responsibility for developing Reliability Standards, such as the Reliability Standards for Geomagnetic Disturbances.
43. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that the changes are necessary to ensure the reliability and integrity of the Nation's Bulk-Power System.
44. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
45. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
47. By only proposing to direct NERC, the Commission-certified ERO, to develop GMD Reliability Standards, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will not have a significant or substantial impact on entities other than NERC. The ERO develops and files with the Commission for approval Reliability Standards affecting the Bulk-Power System, which represents: (a) A total electricity demand of 830 gigawatts (830,000 megawatts) and (b) more than $1 trillion worth of assets. Therefore, the Commission certifies that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
48. Any Reliability Standards proposed by NERC in compliance with
49. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due December 24, 2012. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12-22-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
50. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's web site at
51. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
52. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
53. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
54. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
55. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone encompassing certain waters of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. This action is necessary to prevent terrorist acts and incidents and to safeguard high-ranking government officials and the public-at-large immediately before, during and after activities associated with the Presidential Inauguration in Washington, DC from January 15, 2013 through January 24, 2013. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 23, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (410) 576-2674, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
This rule involves the Presidential Inauguration, an event with a swearing-in ceremony that takes place in Washington, DC every four years on January 20th following the U.S. General election in November. The 55th and 56th Presidential Inaugurations were designated National Special Security Events by the Department of Homeland Security.
On January 20, 2013, the U.S. Presidential Inauguration swearing-in ceremony will take place at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Activities associated with the Presidential Inauguration include several Inaugural ceremonies, balls, parades and receptions in the District of Columbia, which are scheduled to occur from January 15, 2013 through January 24, 2013. During these activities, a gathering of high-ranking United States officials and the public-at-large is expected to take place. These activities are located along navigable waterways within the Captain of the Port Baltimore's Area of Responsibility. The Coast Guard has given each Coast Guard Captain of the Port the ability to implement comprehensive port security regimes designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities while still sustaining the flow of commerce.
The Captain of the Port Baltimore is proposing to establish a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against the large gatherings of high-ranking United States officials, the public-at-large, and surrounding waterfront areas and communities would have. The proposed security zone is necessary to safeguard life and property on the navigable waters before, during, and after activities associated with the Presidential Inauguration and will help the Coast Guard prevent vessels or persons from bypassing the security measures established on shore for the events and engaging in waterborne terrorist actions during the highly-publicized events.
Through this regulation, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone. The proposed zone will be in effect from January 15, 2013 through January 24, 2013. The proposed zone will cover (1) all waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by the Francis Scott Key (U.S. Route 29) Bridge at mile 113.0, downstream to and bounded on the south between the Virginia shoreline and the District of Columbia shoreline along latitude 38°51′00″ N, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin; and (2) all waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by the 11th Street (I-295) Bridge at mile 2.1, downstream to and bounded on the south by its confluence with the Potomac River.
This rule requires that entry into or remaining in this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor in the security zone at the time the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the zone. All vessels underway within this security zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone. To seek permission to transit the area of the security zone, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing the security zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Federal, state, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in the enforcement of the security zone. The Coast Guard will issue notices to the maritime community to further publicize the security zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices will continue until the event is complete.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. There is no vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing expected during the effective period, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of the Port Baltimore to enter and transit the zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a 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 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary security zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination 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 proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05-0938 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels underway within this security zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. Permission may be requested prior to activation of the zone. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(4)
(c)
(d)
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Appalachian Broadcasting Company, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 265A at Maysville, Georgia, as the community's second local FM transmission service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 265A can be allotted to Maysville consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Rules with a site restriction 13.4 kilometers (8.3 miles) northwest of the community. The reference coordinates are 34-20-16 NL and 83-39-52 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before November 19, 2012, and reply comments on or before December 4, 2012.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Douglas M. Sutton, Jr., President, Appalachian Broadcasting Company, Post Office Drawer E, 233 Big A Road, Toccoa, Georgia 30577.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.12-270, adopted September 27, 2012, and released September 28, 2012. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via email
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Georgia, is amended by adding Maysville, Channel 265A.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission proposes to amend the amateur radio service rules to grant examination credit for expired and beyond-the-grace-period-for renewal amateur radio operator licenses; to shorten the grace period during which an expired amateur license may be renewed to 180 days; to revise the time a call sign is not available to the vanity call sign system correspondingly; and to reduce to two the number of volunteer examiners needed to administer an amateur license examination. This document also asks for comment on amending the rules to permit remote test administration, and proposes to amend the amateur radio service rules to allow amateur stations to transmit certain additional emission types.
Submit comments on or before December 24, 2012 and reply comments are due January 22, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 12-283; FCC 12-121, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
William T. Cross, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680, TTY (202) 418-7233.
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. The Commission initiated this proceeding to amend the part 97 Amateur Radio Service rules that apply to examination credit for amateur radio operator licenses, to shorten the grace period during which an expired amateur license may be renewed, to reduce the number of volunteer examiners needed to administer an amateur license examination, and to allow amateur stations to transmit additional emission types. The Commission found that certain provisions in the rules applicable to the examination credit for an expired license treat a former licensee differently than a licensee who passed the same examination(s) but continuously renewed his or her license and that the fact that an individual allowed his or her license to expire more than two years ago does not necessarily mean that the person no longer possess adequate knowledge of the subject. Specifically, the Commission proposed in this
2. The Commission also proposed to reduce the number of VEs required to administer an examination from three to two noting that reducing the number of required VEs can increase the availability of examination opportunities while not compromising the reasons the Commission decided that more than one VE is necessary. It also noted that in the years since the VE system was established, methods that would allow a VE examiner to observe an examinee from afar have been developed, such as audio and video links, either hard-wired to a site or available through the use of wireless Internet or satellite technologies, and it requested comment on whether it should amend Section 97.509(c) to provide that, at the option of the administering VEs and the VEC coordinating the examination session, the VEs may be “present and observing” an examinee for purposes of the rule when they are using an audio and video system that can assure the proper conduct and necessary supervision of each examination.
3. The Commission also proposed to amend § 97.3(c)(5) to allow emission type FXE as a phone emission and to amend § 97.307(f)(8) to allow emission type FXD as a data emission. It noted that this proposed rule change would encourage licensees to more fully utilize time division multiple access (TDMA) technologies in experimentation and promote more efficient use of the radio spectrum currently allocated to the amateur service.
4. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.
5. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before December 24, 2012, and reply comments are due January 22, 2013.
6. Commenters may file comments electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. Commenters filing through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
7. Commenters who chose to file paper comments must file an original and four copies of each comment. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
8. Commenters may send filings by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Commenters must bind all hand deliveries together with rubber bands or fasteners and must dispose of any envelopes before entering the building. This facility is the only location where the Commission's Secretary will accept hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings. Commenters must send commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Commenters should address U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
9. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
11. In this
12. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 97 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 97.3 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(5)
3. Section 97.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) A call sign shown on an expired license grant is not available to the vanity call sign system for 180 days following the expiration of the license.
(2) A call sign shown on a surrendered or canceled license grant (except for a license grant that is canceled pursuant to § 97.31) is not available to the vanity call sign system for 180 days following the date such action is taken. (The availability of a call sign shown on a license canceled pursuant to § 97.31 is governed by paragraph (c)(3) of this section.)
(i) This 180 day period does not apply to any license grant pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section that is surrendered, canceled, revoked, voided, or set aside because the grantee acknowledged or the Commission determined that the grantee was not eligible for the exception. In such a case, the call sign is not available to the vanity call sign system for 30 days following the date such action is taken, or for the period for which the call sign would not have been available to the vanity call sign system pursuant to paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this section but for the intervening grant to the ineligible applicant, whichever is later.
(ii) An applicant to whose operator/primary station license grant, or club station license grant for which the applicant is the trustee, the call sign was previously assigned is exempt from the 180 day period set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(3) A call sign shown on a license canceled pursuant to § 97.31 of this part
4. Section 97.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) A person whose amateur station license grant has expired may apply to the FCC for renewal of the license grant for another term during a 180-day filing grace period. The application must be received at the address specified above prior to the end of the grace period. Unless and until the license grant is renewed, no privileges in this part are conferred.
5. Section 97.307 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(8) and (10) to read as follows:
(f) * * *
(8) A RTTY or data emission having designators with A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1, 2, 7, 9 or X as the second symbol; and D or W as the third symbol is also authorized.
(10) A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license or a Technician Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code or phone emissions J3E and R3E.
6. Section 97.505 is revised to read as follows:
The administering VEs must give credit as specified below to an examinee holding any of the following license grants or license documents:
(a) An unexpired or expired FCC-granted Amateur Extra Class operator license grant: Elements 2, 3, and 4.
(b) An unexpired or expired FCC-granted Advanced Class or General Class operator license grant: Elements 2 and 3.
(c) An unexpired or expired FCC-granted Technician Class or Technician Plus operator license document: Element 2.
(d) An expired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license document granted before March 21, 1987; Element 3.
(e) A CSCE: Each element the CSCE indicates the examinee passed within the previous 365 days.
7. Section 97.507 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), and (c) to read as follows:
(a) Each written question set administered to an examinee must be prepared by a VE holding an Amateur Extra Class operator license. A written question set may also be prepared for the following elements by a VE holding an operator license of the class indicated:
(2) Element 2: Advanced, General, or Technician Plus Class operators
(c) Each written question set administered to an examinee for an amateur operator license must be prepared, or obtained from a supplier, by the administering VEs according to instructions from the coordinating VEC.
8. Section 97.509 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (g), and revising paragraphs (a), (f) and (i) to read as follows:
(a) Each examination for an amateur operator license must be administered by a team of at least 2 VEs at an examination session coordinated by a VEC. The number of examinees at the session may be limited.
(f) No examination that has been compromised shall be administered to any examinee. The same question set may not be re-administered to the same examinee.
(g) [Removed and Reserved]
(i) When the examinee is credited for all examination elements required for the operator license sought, 2 VEs must certify that the examinee is qualified for the license grant and that the VEs have complied with these administering VE requirements. The certifying VEs are jointly and individually accountable for the proper administration of each examination element reported. The certifying VEs may delegate to other qualified VEs their authority, but not their accountability, to administer individual elements of an examination.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The 2013 National Census Contact Test (NCCT), formerly named the 2013 Alternative Contact Strategy Test, supports this alternate contact research. The 2013 NCCT will be conducted over the telephone, using a Computer Assisted Telephone Instrument (CATI) with approximately 40,000 households between January 7, 2013, and February 1, 2013. These interviews will enable Census staff to assess the quality of the data from vendor files that are under consideration for use in the construction of an Alternate Contact Frame. The 2013 NCCT questionnaire will ask respondents for basic demographic information collected in a Census. Demographic information includes questions such as household roster, age, race, Hispanic origin, relationship, and sex. The questionnaire also takes the approach of requesting email addresses and telephone numbers from the respondents. Afterward, the respondent-provided address, phone numbers, and email addresses will be matched to the vendor data being evaluated as well as to the Master Address File (MAF). In addition, the NCCT provides an opportunity for the Census Bureau to test potential enhancements to its automated processing of responses
The Census Bureau designed the 2013 National Census Contact Test to inform the 2020 Census testing and planning design. The intent is to research and validate the quality of the administrative records files, which contain alternate contact data to connect with individuals and households, such as email addresses and cell phone numbers, as well as evaluate enhancements to the Census Bureau's process for matching and geocoding Non-ID'd responses. Additionally, responses to the final interview question (regarding collection of respondent coordinate location) will be compiled and provide some indication of public attitude regarding the use of location-based services on mobile devices to derive a respondent's location.
The results from the 2013 NCCT will influence internal Census Bureau planning decisions that will guide the design of additional 2020 Decennial Census testing later this decade. By testing in 2013, we aim to establish a baseline approach for multi-mode testing. Testing enhancements to Non-ID processing early in the decade will inform early planning for the 2020 Census design, as well as the infrastructure required to support large-scale processing of electronic Non-ID response data submitted via the Internet or a Census-provided questionnaire application designed for mobile devices.
The Census Bureau plans to make the aggregated results of this study available to the public. Data from the research will be included in reports with clear statements about the limitations and that the data were produced for strategic and tactical decision-making and exploratory research and not for official estimates. Research results may be prepared for presentation at professional meetings or in publications in professional journals to promote discussion between the larger survey and statistical community, and to encourage further research and refinement.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or email (
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The NOAA Office of Education's Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program seeks to contribute to NOAA's mission by supporting education efforts to create an environmentally literate citizenry with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to protect watersheds and related ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. B-WET currently funds projects in seven regions (California, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, New England, and the Pacific Northwest). B-WET proposes to create an across-region, internal evaluation system to provide ongoing feedback on program implementation and outcomes to ensure maximum quality and efficiency of the B-WET program. The evaluation system will be sustained by B-WET staff with occasional assistance from an outside contractor.
B-WET awardees and the awardees' professional development teacher-participants will be asked to voluntarily complete an online survey form to provide evaluation data. One individual from each awardee organization will be asked to complete a form once per year of the award, and the teacher participants will be asked to complete one form at the end of their professional development program. In addition, B-WET seeks approval of an item bank that awardees can choose to use to construct surveys for youth participants (ages 10-17) in B-WET-funded programs.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
U.S. Census Bureau.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 24, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Lisa McNelis, U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6800; (301) 763-7344.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the United States Census Bureau plan to continue to conduct the biennial State Government Research and Development Survey (SGRD) to measure research and development supported and performed by state governments in the United States. This survey is a joint effort between the NSF and the Census Bureau. The NSF Act of 1950 includes a statutory charge to “provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies in the Federal Government.” Under the aegis of this legislative mandate, the NSF sponsored surveys of research and development since 1953, including since 2006 the State Government R&D Survey. The Census Bureau's authority to undertake this work is found at 13 U.S.C. 8(b) which provides that the Census Bureau “may make special statistical compilations and surveys for departments, agencies, and establishments of the Federal government, the government of the District of Columbia, the government of any possession or area (including political subdivisions thereof) * * * State or local agencies, or other public and private persons and agencies.”
The State Government Research and Development Survey is the only comprehensive source of research and development expenditure data collected on a nationwide scale using uniform definitions, concepts, and procedures. The collection covers the expenditures of all agencies in the fifty state governments, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that conduct research and development. The NSF has coordinated with the Census Bureau for the data collection. The NSF uses this collection to satisfy its need to collect research and development expenditures data.
Fiscal data provided by respondents aid data users in measuring the effectiveness of resource allocation. The products of this data collection make it possible for data users to obtain information on such things as expenditures according to source
The survey announcements and forms used in the research and development survey are:
The Census Bureau collects all of the research and development expenditure data from approximately 500 state agencies facilitated by a State Coordinator appointed by their Governor. Once an agency completes and submits their data to the State Coordinator, the State Coordinator reviews and submits this information to the Census Bureau in electronic format over the Internet via file transfer protocol.
U.S. Code: 42 U.S.C. 1862: “National Science Foundation Act of 1950”as amended. Title 13, U.S.C., 8 (b), 161, and 182. Title 15 United States Code, 1525.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 35, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on October 19, 2012.
FTZ 35 was approved by the Board on March 24, 1978 (Board Order 128, 43 FR l453l, 4/8/1978) and expanded on August 21, 1980 (Board Order 162, 45 FR 58388, 9/3/1980), December 29, 1993 (Board Order 678, 59 FR 1372, 1/10/1994), September 25, 2001 (Board Order 1189, 66 FR 52742, 10/17/2001), and June 27, 2002 (Board Order 1236, 67 FR 45456, 7/9/2002).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Philadelphia, Delaware, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Lancaster and Berks Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Philadelphia Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone project to include existing Sites 1-6, 10 and 12 as “magnet” sites and existing Sites 7, 8 and 11 as usage-driven sites. The applicant is also requesting approval of the following usage-driven sites:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited (Apex Frozen) has requested a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b). The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating this changed circumstances review and issuing this notice of preliminary results pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). We have preliminarily determined that Apex Frozen is the successor-in-interest to Apex Exports (Apex).
Elizabeth Eastwood or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.
On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the
On September 6, 2012, Apex Frozen informed the Department that on April 1, 2012, Apex legally converted from a partnership firm to a limited liability (
The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.
The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the
The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As indicated in the “Background” section, we have received information indicating that Apex was incorporated as a private limited company and changed its name to Apex Frozen, effective April 1, 2012. This constitutes changed circumstances warranting a review of the order.
Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because we have on the record the information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results.
In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.
In its submission, Apex Frozen has provided sufficient evidence to warrant an expedited review to determine if it is the successor-in-interest to Apex. Apex Frozen states that its company's management, production facilities and customer/supplier relationships have not changed as a result of the conversion process. To support its claims, Apex Frozen submitted the following documents: (1) The original Apex partnership deed, dated October, 24, 1995; (2) the new Apex partnership deed, dated January 1, 2012; (3) the chart showing the particulars of Apex's capital and Apex Frozen's shareholding ownership; (4) the newspaper article notifying the public of Apex's intent to convert to a company; (5) the Certificate
Based on the evidence reviewed, we preliminarily find that Apex Frozen is the successor-in-interest to Apex because Apex's conversion from a partnership firm to a limited liability company resulted in no significant changes to management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers. As a result, we preliminarily find that Apex Frozen operates as the same business entity as Apex. Thus, we preliminarily find that Apex Frozen should receive the same antidumping duty cash-deposit rate (
However, because cash deposits are only estimates of the amount of antidumping duties that will be due, changes in cash deposit rates are not made retroactive and therefore no change will be made to Apex Frozen's cash deposit rate as a result of these preliminary results. If Apex Frozen believes that the deposits paid exceed the actual amount of dumping, it is entitled to request an administrative review during the anniversary month of the publication of the order of those entries to determine the proper assessment rate and receive a refund of any excess deposits.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding. We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
David Lindgren and Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3870 and (202) 482-1398, respectively.
On September 27, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of hardwood and decorative plywood from the People's Republic of China (PRC)
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of hardwood and decorative plywood from the PRC received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that imports from these producers/exporters materially injure, or threaten material injury to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that it requests the Department to initiate.
The period of investigation is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011.
The products covered by this investigation are hardwood and decorative plywood from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, please see the “Scope of
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. As a result, the “Scope of Investigation” language has been modified from the language in the Petition to reflect these clarifications.
Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations,
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date set by the Department. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on September 28, 2012, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the PRC (GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that hardwood and decorative plywood constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case,
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of the domestic like product in 2011 and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
On October 9, 2012, we received a submission on behalf of an importer of hardwood and decorative plywood, an interested party to this proceeding as defined in section 771(9)(A) of the Act, questioning the industry support calculation. On October 11, 2012, we received a second submission on behalf of that importer of hardwood and decorative plywood, supplementing the importer's October 9, 2012, challenge to Petitioners' industry support calculation. On October 15, 2012, Petitioners filed their response to the importer's industry support challenge.
Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that Petitioners have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.
Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenue; reduced capacity and capacity utilization; increased inventories; decline in financial performance; and employment data.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner(s) supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the Petition on hardwood and decorative plywood from the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of hardwood and decorative plywood in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination,
We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:
We are not including in our investigation the following program alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:
For this investigation, the Department expects to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of investigation. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the representatives of the GOC. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified at Exhibit I-7 of the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Hardwood and decorative plywood is a panel composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) in combination with a core. The several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a finished product. A hardwood and decorative plywood panel can be composed of one or more species of hardwoods, softwoods, or bamboo, (in addition to other materials that are used for the core, as detailed below).
Hardwood and decorative plywood is generally manufactured to American National Standard for Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009; it is differentiated from “structural plywood” (also known as “industrial plywood” or “industrial panels”), which must meet the “bond performance” requirements set forth at paragraph 5.8.6.4 of U.S. Products Standard PS 1-09 for Structural Plywood.
Hardwood and decorative plywood is primarily manufactured as a panel. The most common panel sizes are 1219 x 1829 mm (48 x 72 inches), 1219 x 2438 mm (48 x 96 inches), and 1219 x 3048 mm (48 x 120 inches). However, these panels may be cut-to-size by the manufacturer in accordance with a customer's requirements, or made to other sizes.
A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. The face veneer is the exposed veneer of a hardwood and decorative plywood product which is of a superior grade than that of the other exposed veneer of the product (i.e., as opposed to the inner veneers). The face veneer is also either side of the product when the two exposed veneers are of the same grade. The face veneer is also the side of the product that is intended to be exposed for view after installation.
The core of hardwood and decorative plywood consists of the layer or layers of material(s) that are situated between the front and back veneers. The core may be composed of a range of materials, including but not limited to veneers, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard (MDF).
All hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless whether or not the face and/or back veneers are surface coated. Additionally, the face veneer of hardwood and decorative plywood may be sanded, smoothed or given a “distressed” appearance through such methods as hand-scraping or wire brushing. The face veneer may also be stained (i.e., to achieve a particular color).
Unless subject to a specifically enumerated exclusion detailed below, all hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the definition of subject merchandise, without regard to: dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face veneer thickness of back veneer, thickness of core, and thickness of inner veneers; width; and length); wood species used for the face, back and inner veneers (including hardwoods, softwoods or bamboo); core composition; the grade of the face and back veneers; and whether or not surface coated (i.e., “unfinished” or “prefinished”). The face and/or back veneers of the product may be sanded, smoothed, scraped or stained.
Hardwood and decorative plywood is generally manufactured to American National Standard for Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009. Regardless of whether the product meets the ANSI/HPVA standard, all hardwood and decorative plywood is included within this definition if it meets the physical description set forth therein.
The scope of the investigation excludes the following items: (1) Structural plywood that is manufactured and stamped to meet U.S. Products Standard PS 1-09 for Structural Plywood (including any revisions to that standard or any substantially equivalent international standard intended for structural plywood), including but not limited to the “bond performance” requirements set forth at paragraph 5.8.6.4 of that Standard and the performance criteria detailed at Table 4 through 10 of that Standard; (2) plywood platforms with a face and back ply of cork; (3) multilayered wood flooring, as described in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Investigation Nos. A-570-970 and C-570-971 (published December 8, 2011); (4) plywood further manufactured or further worked aside from sanding, surface coating (
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 4412.10.0500; 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; and 4412.99.9000. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; withdrawal of application and receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA (Responsible Party: Michael Simpkins), has withdrawn application File No. 15777 and submitted a new application (File No. 17670) for a permit to take marine mammals during scientific research in coastal waters and adjacent waters off the northeast U.S.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before November 23, 2012.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376;
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Tammy Adams or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of initiation of 5-year review; request for information.
NMFS announces a 5-year review of the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (
To allow adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than December 24, 2012.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0198, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Melissa Neuman, NMFS Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division, 562-980-4115.
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the Southern DPS since the listing determination in 2006. The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data and all new information that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability; (3) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species; (4) status and trends of threats; (5) other new information, data, or improved analytical methods; and (6) corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes. The Southern DPS consists of populations originating from coastal and Central Valley watersheds south of the Eel River in California, with the only known spawning population in the Sacramento River. NMFS also seeks new information available on the Northern DPS, consisting of populations originating from coastal watersheds north of and including the Eel River. The Northern DPS is listed as a NMFS Species of Concern. At the time of the Southern DPS proposed listing, NMFS volunteered to revisit and update, if necessary, the Northern DPS' status in five years time (70 FR 17386; April 6, 2005). Therefore, any information submitted regarding the Northern DPS will not be used as part of a formal 5-year status review, but rather an informal assessment of the DPS' status to verify whether its current position on the Species of Concern List is still appropriate.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating ongoing research and conservation activities and may be incorporated into the final recovery plan for the Southern DPS.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a webinar of the Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).
The webinar will convene at 1 p.m. on Thursday, November 8, 2012 and will conclude approximately 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar and is accessible by computers (Windows or Mac), or by iPhone, iPad, or Android device with the GoToMeeting app available from the App Store or Google Play. A registration link to sign up for the webinar will be available on the Council Web site.
Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC will meet jointly via webinar on Thursday, November 8, 2012 to review an analysis of this year's red snapper overharvest. Under a rule published on May 30, 2012 [77 FR 31734] the acceptable biological catch (ABC) for red snapper was set at 8.080 million pounds for 2012 and 8.690 million pounds for 2013, with 51 percent of the ABC allocated to a commercial quota and 49 percent to a recreational quota. The increase in the ABC 2013 was contingent upon the stock ABC not being exceeded in 2012. If the stock ABC was exceeded in 2012, the stock ABC and sector quotas would remain at the 2012 levels unless the best scientific information available
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site,
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), on behalf of the City of Seattle (City), for authorization for the take, by Level B harassment, of marine mammals incidental to construction associated with the replacement of the Elliott Bay Seawall in Seattle, Washington, for the period September 2013-September 2018. Pursuant to Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) implementing regulations, NMFS is announcing receipt of SDOT's request for the development and implementation of 5-year regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on SDOT's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than November 23, 2012.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8400.
A copy of SDOT's application may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * *an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On September 17, 2012, NMFS received a complete application from SDOT requesting authorization for the take of nine marine mammal species incidental to replacement of the Elliott Bay Seawall in Seattle, Washington over the course of 5 years, which would necessitate the promulgation of 5-year regulations. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the risks of coastal storm and seismic damage and to protect public safety, critical infrastructure, and associated economic activities in the area. Additionally, the project would improve the degraded ecosystem functions and processes of the Elliott Bay nearshore around the existing seawall. Noise produced during pile installation and removal activities has the potential to take marine mammals. SDOT requests authorization to take nine marine mammal species by Level B harassment only: Pacific harbor seal (
In the application submitted to NMFS, SDOT requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to replacement of the Elliott Bay Seawall. Construction activities, namely vibratory and impact pile installation and removal, would occur in two phases. Phase 1 involves construction of the Central Seawall and Phase 2 involves construction of the North Seawall. The entire project is expected to take 7 years, but SDOT's request covers the first 5 years. Section 2 of SDOT's application describes the activities in detail, as well as the location and construction schedule.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning SDOT's request (see
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).
Notice.
The CFTC announces that on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, its Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) will hold a public meeting in Chicago at the Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois, 60605, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The TAC will have presentations on the definition for High Frequency Trading (HFT) from its Subcommittee on Automated and High Frequency Trading, and presentations on technology solutions for both protecting customer funds, and solutions related to futures commission merchant (FCM) and designated contract market (DCM) risk management.
The meeting will be held on October 30, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by October 29, 2012.
The meeting will take place in Chicago at the Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois, 60605. Written statements should be submitted to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretary. Please use the title “Technology Advisory Committee” in any written statement submitted. Any statements submitted in connection with the committee meeting will be made available to the public.
Bella Rozenberg, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5119.
The CFTC has determined that holding the announced TAC meeting is in the public interest in connection with the duties imposed on the CFTC by the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1-26, as amended. Therefore, the meeting is being announced with less than the 15 calendar days' notice provided by 41 CFR 102-3.150(b). The TAC meeting will focus on three significant issues facing the futures and swaps industries as the Commission continues to finalize rules under the Dodd Frank Act. Those issues are: (1) HFT definitions; (2) protecting customer funds; and (3) FCM and DCM risk management. The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting by telephone may do so by calling a toll-free telephone line to contact to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name and affiliation. Additionally, a video recording of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site.
All written submissions provided to the CFTC in any form will also be published on the Web site of the CFTC.
5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(a)(2).
By the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of Proposed Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, hereinto referred to as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”), gives notice of the establishment of a Privacy Act System of Records.
Comments must be received no later than November 23, 2012. The new system of records will be effective December 3, 2012, unless the comments received result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-7220.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”), Public Law 111-203, Title X, established the CFPB to administer and enforce federal consumer financial law. The new system of records described in this notice, CFPB.023—CFPB Prize Competitions Program Records, will enable the CFPB to manage its prize competition program authorized by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, select judges for CFPB sponsored prize competitions, maintain accounting and financial information associated with making authorized payments to companies or individuals who are CFPB sponsored prize competition awardees, develop reports to applicable federal, state, and local taxing officials of taxable income, and to meet other reporting requirements. The CFPB will maintain control over the records covered by this notice.
The report of the new system of records has been submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000,
The system of records entitled “CFPB.023—CFPB Prize Competitions Program Records” is published in its entirety below.
CFPB Prize Competitions Program Records.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
Individuals covered by this system include: (1) Any individual who participates in a CFPB sponsored prize competition, or is a CFPB sponsored prize competition awardee, including representatives of companies who, in their business capacity, may participate in or otherwise represent their companies in CFPB sponsored prize competitions; (2) Any individual who nominates an individual to serve as a judge for a CFPB sponsored prize competition, or is nominated to serve as a judge, is currently serving as a judge, has been selected as an alternative judge, and/or has served as a judge and is no longer serving; and (3) Any individual who notarizes, witnesses, or otherwise verifies a declaration of participation associated with a CFPB sponsored prize competition.
Information maintained on CFPB sponsored prize competition participants will include: contact information (including name, address, email address, and telephone number). Information maintained on CFPB sponsored prize competition awardees will include: (1) Contact information (including name, address, email address, and telephone number); (2) employment information, including title; (3) information necessary for payment, including Social Security number (“SSN”), Tax Identification Number (“TIN”), Employee Identification Number (“EIN”), Data Universal Numbering System (“DUNS”) Number, Commercial and Government Entity (“CAGE”) number, Electronic Funds Transfer (“EFT”) data, and/or financial institution name, routing, and account numbers; and (4) information relevant to determination of eligibility for selection as a prize competition awardee, such as employment information, citizenship status, and declaration of desire and eligibility to participate. Information maintained on individuals who nominate an individual to serve as a judge for a CFPB sponsored prize competition will include name and contact information (including name, address, email address, and telephone number). Information maintained on individuals serving as, or being nominated to serve as a judge for a CFPB sponsored prize competition will include place of birth, date of birth, gender, citizenship status, declaration of desire and eligibility to participate, SSN, financial disclosure information, and other information that can be used to determine if the individual is fit to participate. Information collected about individuals who notarize, witness, or otherwise verify declarations of participation associated with a CFPB sponsored prize competition includes name and notary seal (including name, state of issue, and commission expiration date) only.
Records are subject to the Privacy Act only to the extent that they concern individuals; information pertaining to corporations and other business entities and organizations are not subject to the Privacy Act.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-358, Section 105, codified at 15 U.S.C. 3719; Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 111-203, Section 1012, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5492.
Records in this system are collected to enable the CFPB to manage its prize competition program authorized by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, select judges for CFPB sponsored prize competitions, maintain accounting and financial information associated with making authorized payments to companies or individuals who are CFPB sponsored prize competition awardees, develop reports to applicable federal, state, and local taxing officials of taxable income, and to meet other reporting requirements.
These records may be disclosed, consistent with the CFPB Disclosure of Records and Information Rules, promulgated at 12 CFR 1070
(1) Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The CFPB suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the CFPB has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the CFPB or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the CFPB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
(2) Another federal or state agency to (a) permit a decision as to access, amendment or correction of records to be made in consultation with or by that agency, or (b) verify the identity of an individual or the accuracy of
(3) The Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf;
(4) Congressional offices in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(5) Contractors, agents, or other authorized individuals performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity on behalf of the CFPB or Federal Government and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities;
(6) The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for its use in providing legal advice to the CFPB or in representing the CFPB in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body, where the use of such information by the DOJ is deemed by the CFPB to be relevant and necessary to the advice or proceeding, and such proceeding names as a party in interest:
(a) The CFPB;
(b) Any employee of the CFPB in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any employee of the CFPB in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where the CFPB determines that litigation is likely to affect the CFPB or any of its components;
(7) Members of the media, federal, state, and local government officials or other recipients of the CFPB's external affairs communications to inform them about CFPB sponsored prize competitions, awardees, related selection processes, and other program activities;
(8) To the public, members of the media, federal, state, and local government officials, or other recipients of CFPB reports, viewers of the CFPB's Web site, blog postings, and other social media, and recipients of other public relations materials issued by the CFPB about CFPB sponsored prize competitions, awardees, related selection processes, and other program activities; and
(9) To the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, and other governmental entities, including state and local taxing officials, to facilitate taxation of payments made to CFPB sponsored prize competition awardees.
Paper and electronic records.
Records are retrievable by a variety of fields including, without limitation, the individual's name, SSN, address, account number, phone number, date of birth, employer, prize competition name, or by some combination thereof.
Access to electronic records is restricted to authorized personnel who have been issued non-transferrable access codes and passwords. Other records are maintained in locked file cabinets or rooms with access limited to those personnel whose official duties require access.
The CFPB will maintain electronic and paper records indefinitely until the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) approves the CFPB's records disposition schedule.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Chief Financial Officer, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
Individuals seeking notification and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing in Title 12, Chapter 10 of the CFR, “Disclosure of Records and Information.” Address such requests to: Chief Privacy Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
See “Notification Procedures” above.
See “Notification Procedures” above.
Information in this system is provided by individuals who participate in CFPB sponsored prize competition activities, by individuals who nominate an individual to serve as a judge for a CFPB sponsored prize competition, or individuals who are nominated or serve as judges for a CFPB sponsored prize competition, and by individuals who notarize, witness, or otherwise verify declarations of participation associated with a CFPB sponsored prize competition.
None.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application) filed on August 31, 2012, by Cheniere Marketing, LLC (CMI), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export up to 782 million MMBtu per year of LNG, equivalent to approximately 767 Bcf per year of natural gas, for a period of 22 years beginning on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is granted by DOE/FE. The LNG would be exported from the proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (CCL Project) to be located near Corpus Christi, Texas, to any country with which the United States does not have now or in the future has a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas and LNG; that has, or in the future develops, the capacity to import LNG; and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. On October 10, 2012, in a letter to DOE/FE, CMI clarified that it is requesting this authorization to export LNG both on its own behalf and as agent for other parties who hold title to the LNG at the point of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, December 24, 2012.
CMI, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, is affiliated with Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (CCL) and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. (CCP), the developers of the CCL Project. CMI is an indirect subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, Inc. (Cheniere Energy), a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Houston, Texas. Cheniere Energy is a developer of LNG terminals and natural gas pipelines on the Gulf Coast, including the CCL Project. CMI is authorized to do business in the States of Texas and Louisiana.
CMI states that it is filing this Application in conjunction with the CCL Project being developed by CMI's affiliates, CCL and CCP, at the site of the previously authorized CCLNG import terminal and associated pipeline in San Patricia and Nueces Counties Texas.
On August 31, 2012, in FE Docket No. 12-99-LNG, CMI filed with DOE/FE a separate application for long-term multi-contract authorization to engage in the export of LNG in an amount up to 782 million MMBtu per year, to any country with which the U.S. does not now or in the future will have an FTA requiring the national treatment for trade in natural gas and LNG; that has developed, or in the future develops, the capacity to import LNG; and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. DOE/FE subsequently issued an order in FE Docket No 12-99-LNG granting long-term export authorization to FTA countries from the CCL Project.
In the instant Application, CMI seeks long-term, multi-contract authorization to export up to 782 million MMBtu per year of LNG, equivalent to approximately 767 Bcf per year of natural gas, for a period of 22 years beginning on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is granted by DOE/FE. CMI requests authorization to export LNG to any country with which the United States does not have an FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, that has, or in the future develops, the capacity to import LNG, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy.
CMI states that the CCL Project will be located on the northern shore of the La Quinta Channel north and east of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas. CMI states that the CCL Project will include three ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade
CMI states that concurrent with this Application, CCL is filing an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for authorization pursuant to Section 3(a) of the NGA to site, construct and operate the CCL Terminal, and CCP is filing an application with FERC pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA to construct, own and operate the Corpus Christi Pipeline to connect the CCL Terminal facilities to interstate and intrastate natural gas supplies and markets.
CMI states that it proposes to source natural gas to be used as feedstock for LNG production at the CCL Project from the interstate and intrastate grid at points of interconnection with other pipelines and points of liquidity both upstream and downstream of the Pipeline. CMI notes that through the Pipeline's interconnects with various interstate and intrastate pipeline systems, the CCL Project will have access to virtually any point on the U.S. interstate pipeline system through direct delivery or by displacement.
CMI states that it currently is engaged in commercial discussions with CCL to obtain all the available liquefaction capacity at the CCL Terminal. CMI states that either CMI or the CCL Project will bear the responsibility for sourcing gas supplies for delivery to the CCL Terminal. CMI states that CCL will commence negotiations with CCP for transportation capacity on the Pipeline once commercial discussion between CCL and CMI progress.
CMI states that it will comply with all DOE/FE requirements for exporters and agents, including the registration requirements as first established in
CMI states that it has not yet entered into any long-term gas supply or long-term export contracts with regards to this Application. CMI states that, accordingly, it is not submitting transaction-specific information (e.g., long-term supply agreements and long-term export agreements) at this time and requests that DOE/FE make a similar finding to that made in
Lastly, CMI requests that DOE/FE issue a conditional Order authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG as requested in this Application by February 2013, followed by issuance of a final order immediately upon completion of the environmental review of the CCL Project by the FERC.
CMI states that it proposed the project in part due to the improved outlook for domestic natural gas production, owing to drilling productivity gains that have enabled rapid growth in new supplies in South Texas and elsewhere in the United States. CMI contends that improvements in drilling and extraction technologies have coincided with a rapid diffusion of knowledge in the natural gas industry of the resource base and best practices in drilling and resource development. CMI notes that these changes have rendered obsolete once prominent concerns of declining future domestic natural gas production. CMI maintains that authorizing exports of LNG will further the responsible development of these emerging sources of domestic natural gas, providing a positive market solution that will:
(1) Raise domestic natural gas productive capacity and promote stability in domestic natural gas pricing,
(2) Stimulate the regional, state, and national economy through job creation and increased economic activity,
(3) Promote the liberalization of contract structures in global LNG markets by lowering the cost of energy in foreign nations, thereby fostering economic growth abroad and creating demand for U.S.-sourced goods and services,
(4) Expand economic activity and job creation in the domestic natural gas and petrochemicals sectors,
(5) Promote greater national security by expanding American influence in international energy markets while enabling greater production in domestic petroleum basins,
(6) Improve the U.S. balance of payments between $5.88 billion and $9.52 billion annually through the exportation of natural gas and the displacement of imports of other petroleum liquids, and
(7) Increase economic trade and ties with foreign trading partners and hemispheric allies, and displace environmentally damaging fuels in those countries.
In support of its Application, CMI commissioned a report from Advanced Resources International (ARI), titled
In support of its Application, CMI also commissioned a report from the Perryman Group, titled
First, with respect to economic activity, the Perryman Report estimates that the cumulative beneficial direct impact to business activity and tax receipts due to the construction and operation of the CCL project over 25 years will range from $9.9 billion to $11.2 billion to the regional economy, $19.6 billion to $23.5 billion to the Texas economy, and $25.5 billion to $31.1 billion to the U.S. economy.
Second, the Perryman Report estimates that the total indirect benefits due to enhanced natural gas exploration and production investments over 25 years made possible by the CCL Project will be $13.8 billion to the regional economy, $101.0 billion to the Texas economy, and $111.4 billion to the U.S. economy.
Third, with respect to job creation, the Perryman Report estimates the construction and operation of the CCL Project over 25 years will create between 39,823 and 52,613 jobs nationwide, and that an additional 44,341 jobs will be indirectly generated owing to stimulus in the E&P sector.
Fourth, CMI states that another indirect benefit of the CCL Project will be captured by the chemical industry, which CMI says will be advantageously impacted by the additional production of NGLs, such as ethane, made possible through LNG exports. CMI states that the economic benefits due to the construction of new chemical manufacturing facilities supported by exports from the CCL Project will be $1.1 billion to the regional economy, $2.1 billion to the Texas economy, and $3.0 billion to the U.S. economy.
CMI states that these as well as other benefits enumerated in this Application compellingly demonstrate that the export of LNG and the approval of this Application are in the public interest.
Further details can be found in the Application, which has been posted at
CMI states that the potential environment impacts of the Project will be reviewed by the FERC under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CMI notes that DOE/FE has agreed to act as a cooperating agency in the environmental review process for the CCL project, including the preparation of an EA or EIS, which will satisfy the NEPA responsibilities associated with the LNG exports as proposed in the Application. Accordingly, CMI requests that DOE/FE issue a conditional order authorizing the export of LNG as requested in the Application, conditioned on completion of the environmental review of the CCL Project by the FERC.
The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, as amended, and the authority contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 00-002.00L (April 29, 2011) and DOE Redelegation Order No. 00-002.04E (April 29, 2011). In reviewing this LNG export Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant or appropriate, these issues will include the impact of LNG exports associated with this Application, and the cumulative impact of any other application(s) previously approved, on domestic need for the gas proposed for export, adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and any other issues, including the impact on the U.S. economy (GDP), consumers, and industry, job creation, U.S. balance of trade, international considerations, and whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this Application should comment in their responses on these issues, as well as any other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
NEPA requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.
Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicants, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or motions for additional procedures.
In response to this notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. A party seeking intervention may request that additional procedures be provided, such as additional written comments, an oral presentation, a conference, or trial-type hearing. Any request to file additional written comments should explain why they are necessary. Any request for an oral presentation should identify the substantial question of fact, law, or policy at issue, show that it is material and relevant to a decision in the proceeding, and demonstrate why an oral presentation is needed. Any request for a conference should demonstrate why the conference would materially advance the proceeding. Any request for a trial-type hearing must show that there are factual issues genuinely in dispute that are relevant and material to a decision and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application filed by CMI is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
U.S. Department of Energy.
SES Performance Review Board Standing Register.
This notice provides the Performance Review Board Standing Register for the Department of Energy. This listing supersedes all previously published lists of PRB members.
These appointments are effective as of September 30, 2012.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.
This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy.
This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2012.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish these notices in the
L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Elliott Levine, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-1476; email:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations: Due to the small size and particular location of this project and the close coordination with state and federal agencies during the preparation of the application, the 60-day timeframe in 18 CFR 4.34(b) is shortened. Instead, motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations will be due 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from the date of this notice.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The proposed Cheshire Mills Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) The existing 94-foot-long, 29-foot-high quarried-stone Cheshire Mills Dam with a 38-foot-long, 27-foot-high spillway section; (2) an existing 0.2-acre impoundment with a normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,282.85 feet mean sea level; (3) an existing intake structure with a 24-foot-high, 5-foot-wide trashrack that would be modified to have 1-inch clear bar spacing, and a 4-foot-high, 4-foot-wide sluice gate; (4) an existing 128-foot-long, 42-inch-
m. Due to the project works already existing and the limited scope of proposed modifications to the project site described above, the applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application, completed studies during pre-filing consultation, and agency-recommended preliminary terms and conditions, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the exemption process. Based on a review of the application and resource agency consultation letters, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in the EA were adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public meeting and site visits, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation and land use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic resources.
n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” or “TERMS AND CONDITIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, or terms and conditions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
p. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k. The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam and the Braddock Pool, and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A new powerhouse with five turbine-generators having a total installed capacity of 3,750 kilowatts; (2) a new approximately 3,450-foot-long electric transmission line; (3) a switchyard and control room; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated to be 25,020 megawatt-hours.
The proposed project would deploy hydropower turbines within a patented “Large Frame Module” (LFM) that would be deployed on the south (river left) side of the dam, opposite the location of the existing navigational locks and at the upstream face of the existing left closure weir. The proposed modular, low environmental impact powerhouse would be approximately 60.4 feet long, 16.6 feet wide, and 40 feet high, and constructed of structural-grade steel. The powerhouse will bear on a concrete foundation on rock that is anchored to the existing left closure weir. A trash rack with 6-inch openings would be placed at the powerhouse intake to increase safety and protect the turbines from large debris.
l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
m. Waiver of Pre-filing Consultation: In its license application, filed on September 17, 2012, the applicant stated that it had been engaged in direct, substantive consultation with the entities that have expressed interest in the proposed project, including key federal and state agencies involved in the review of the proposed project. The applicant further states that in August, 2012, it forwarded an informal draft of the license application and associated study reports to the interested agencies, and subsequently met with the agencies to discuss the documents in detail. The applicant's license application included copies of correspondence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection expressing support for proceeding directly to a final license application.
Therefore, we intend to accept the consultation that has occurred on this project during the pre-filing period and we intend to waive the pre-filing consultation requirements under section 4.38(c) pertaining to distribution and consultation on the draft license application.
Take notice that on October 10, 2012, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above captioned docket an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Tennessee to construct, install, modify, operate, and maintain certain compressor facilities at three existing compressor stations in northeastern Pennsylvania, and to abandon certain compression facilities all part of its Rose Lake Expansion Project. The Rose Lake Expansion Project is designed to increase pipeline capacity by approximately 230,000 dekatherms per day of firm natural gas transportation service into northeast U.S. markets, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is accessible on-line at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Todd Piczak, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 420-3822, fax: (713) 420-1601, email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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 commentors 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 the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. Due to the applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application, completed studies, and agency comments, we intend to waive scoping. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters, and comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, and cultural and historic resources.
n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p.
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 5:00 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 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:
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 5:00 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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Texas Dispatchable Wind 1 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 November 6, 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(s) 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Frontier Utilities New York LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 November 6, 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(s) 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Sunbury Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 November 6, 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(s) 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Dynamo Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Ingenco Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
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 November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of BITH Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Great Bay Energy IV, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Chesapeake Renewable Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Collegiate Clean Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Noble Americas Energy Solutions LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to
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 November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of BITHENERGY, Inc.'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 November 7, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Homer City Generation, 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 November 7, 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
Take notice that on October 4, 2012 WBI Energy Transmission, Inc (WBI Energy), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismark, North Dakota, 58503, filed in Docket No. CP13-1-000, 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 abandon storage facilities at its Baker Storage Reservoir in Fallon County, Montana. Specifically, WBI Energy proposes to abandon one natural gas storage well (Well 23) and its associated 4-inch diameter well line measuring approximately 125 feet (Well Line 23). Well 23 has not been utilized since November 2011 due to sub-surface damage and unsuccessful repair attempts. WBI Energy has determined that plugging and abandoning the well is the best course of action, 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 Keith A. Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., P.O. Box 5601, Bismark, North Dakota, 58506, or call (701) 530-1560, 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 the 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's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):
The above-referenced meetings will be held over conference call or at:
or
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6604 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Jason Strong, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6124 or
Take notice that a technical conference will be held to discuss the Agreement-in-Principle between the Public Service Company of Colorado, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife filed on September 24, 2012, for the Cabin Creek Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project No. 2351.
This conference will be held on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, beginning at 9:00 a.m. (MST) via teleconference.
All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no transcript of the conference. Please contact David Turner at (202) 502-6091 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (
Comments identified by the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before November 23, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0804, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to:
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
In Table I. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.
In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Imports, Notice of commencement, Premanufacturer, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Test marketing exemptions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 524-EUP-RNL from Monsanto Company requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for the herbicides glyphosate and dicamba (M1751 Herbicide). The Agency has determined that the permit may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, because of the potential significance, EPA is seeking comments on this application.
Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0735, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Erik Kraft, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9358; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your request changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or 1 acre or more of water.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the following EUP application may be of regional and national significance, and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
A copy of the application and any information submitted is available for public review in the docket established for this EUP application.
Informed by the Agency's risk assessments as well as the public responses to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the
Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of past response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with Hamburg Mill Creek Superfund Site, Berks County, Pennsylvania was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Settling Party”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA $30,000.00 for past response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2012.
The Proposed Agreement and additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be obtained from Jefferie E. Garcia (3RC42), Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “Hamburg Mill Creek Superfund Site,
Jefferie E. Garcia (3RC42), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814-2697;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pesticide Programs is inviting nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. Vacancies are expected to be filled by early spring 2013. Additional sources may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.
Nominations must be emailed or postmarked no later than November 9, 2012.
Nominations should be emailed or submitted in writing to Margie Fehrenbach at the address listed under
Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-4775; fax number: (703) 308-4776; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants; State, local, and tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0823, is available at
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply, the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential risks posed by pesticides.
The Charter for EPA's PPDC was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995, and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was renewed October 28, 2011, for another 2-year period. The purpose of PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations.
The PPDC meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the spring and the fall. Additionally, members may be asked to serve on work groups to develop recommendations to address specific policy issues. The average workload for members is approximately 4 to 6 hours per month. EPA provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business.
Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.
Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations may be submitted in electronic format (preferred) or mailed to Margie Fehrenbach at the address listed under
To be considered, all nominations should include:
• Current contact information for the nominee, including the nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization), current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number.
• Brief statement describing the nominee's interest in serving on the PPDC.
• Résumé and a short biography (no more than two paragraphs) describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including
• Letter[s] of recommendation from a third party supporting the nomination. The letter should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the PPDC.
Other sources, in addition to this
Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture, Chemicals, Endangered species, Foods, Pesticide labels, Pesticides and pests, Public health, Spray drift.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.
Thursday, November 8, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by email at
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101).
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101) effective on the date shown.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 8, 2012.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 19, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
2.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 8, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend through February 28, 2016, the current OMB clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule (“MTOR” or “Rule”). That clearance expires on February 28, 2013.
Comments must be received by December 24, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information should be addressed to Jock Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's rules and regulations under the Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule (“MTOR”), 16 CFR Part 435 (OMB Control Number 3084-0106).
The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. All comments must be received on or before December 24, 2012.
The MTOR was promulgated in 1975 in response to consumer complaints that many merchants were failing to ship merchandise ordered by mail on time, failing to ship at all, or failing to provide prompt refunds for unshipped merchandise. A second rulemaking proceeding in 1993 demonstrated that the delayed shipment and refund problems of the mail order industry
Generally, the MTOR requires a merchant to: (1) Have a reasonable basis for any express or implied shipment representation made in soliciting the sale (if no express time period is promised, the implied shipment representation is 30 days); (2) notify the consumer and obtain the consumer's consent to any delay in shipment; and (3) make prompt and full refunds when the consumer exercises a cancellation option or the merchant is unable to meet the Rule's other requirements.
The notice provisions in the Rule require a merchant who is unable to ship within the promised shipment time or 30 days to notify the consumer of a revised date and his or her right to cancel the order and obtain a prompt refund. Delays beyond the revised shipment date also trigger a notification requirement to consumers. When the MTOR requires the merchant to make a refund and the consumer has paid by credit card, the Rule also requires the merchant to notify the consumer either that any charge to the consumer's charge account will be reversed or that the merchant will take no action that will result in a charge.
In its 2009-2010 PRA-related
No substantive provisions in the Rule have been amended or changed since staff's prior submission to OMB.
Since the prior submission to OMB, however, the number of businesses engaged in the sale of merchandise by mail or by telephone has changed. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau
In an average year during the three-year OMB clearance period, staff estimates that established businesses and new entrants will devote 1,858,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand, to comply with the MTOR [(29,478 established businesses × 50 hours) + (1,263 new entrants × 230 hours) = 1,764,390].
The estimated PRA burden per merchant to comply with the MTOR is likely overstated. The mail-order industry has been subject to the basic provisions of the Rule since 1976 and the telephone-order industry since 1994. Thus, businesses have had several years (and some have had decades) to integrate compliance systems into their business procedures. Moreover, arguably much of the estimated time burden for disclosure-related compliance would be incurred even absent the Rule. Industry trade associations and individual witnesses have consistently taken the position that compliance with the MTOR is widely regarded by direct marketers as being good business practice. Providing consumers with notice about the status of their orders fosters consumer loyalty and encourages repeat purchases, which are important to direct marketers' success. Accordingly, the Rule's notification requirements would be followed in any event by most merchants to meet consumer expectations regarding timely shipment, notification of delay, and prompt and full refunds. Thus, it appears that much of the time and expense associated with Rule compliance may not constitute “burden” under the PRA.
FTC staff derived labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. According to the most recent data available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics,
The applicable requirements impose minimal start-up costs, as businesses subject to the Rule generally have or obtain necessary equipment for other business purposes, i.e., inventory and order management, and customer relations. For the same reason, staff anticipates printing and copying costs to be minimal, especially given that telephone order merchants have increasingly turned to electronic communications to notify consumers of delay and to provide cancellation options. Staff believes that the above requirements necessitate ongoing, regular training so that covered entities stay current and have a clear understanding of federal mandates, but that this would be a small portion of and subsumed within the ordinary training that employees receive apart from that associated with the information collected under the Rule.
You can file a comment online or on paper. Write “Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule: FTC File No. R511929” 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 * * * privileged or confidential,” as discussed 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). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, the Commission encourages 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 “Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule: FTC File No. R511929” 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 J), 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
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Ventron Corporation, in Beverly, Massachusetts, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On October 12, 2012, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked for the Ventron Corporation at its facility in Beverly, Massachusetts, from November 1, 1942, through December 31, 1948, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation will become effective on November 11, 2012, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people. Opportunities will be provided during the meeting for oral comments.
The Committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary; the Assistant Secretary for Health; and the Director, CDC, regarding new scientific knowledge and technological developments and their practical implications for childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts. The committee also reviews and reports regularly on childhood lead poisoning prevention practices and recommends improvements in national childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts.
Agenda items will include the following: Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Update—Status of our 35 Programs; evaluation of services for children in Chicago; scientific program presentation costs and benefits of smoke free policies in public housing; Laboratory Workgroup updates; Educational Intervention Workgroup presentation; Agency updates and Response to ACCLPP Recommendations; Federal agency updates; HUD Guidelines (Second Edition); Lead-based paint/hazards standard review; Spot Test Kit update and international work.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop F-61, Chamblee, Georgia 30345, Telephone: (770) 488-0575, Fax: (770) 488-3377, Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces that a public meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) (“Committee”) will be held on Wednesday, January 30, 2013. The Committee generally provides advice and recommendations concerning the adequacy of scientific evidence needed to determine whether certain medical items and services can be covered under the Medicare statute. This meeting will focus on beta amyloid positron emission tomography in dementia and neurodegenerative disease. This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)).
We will be broadcasting the meeting live via Webcast at
Maria Ellis, Executive Secretary for MEDCAC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Coverage and Analysis Group, S3-02-01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244 or contact Ms. Ellis by phone (410-786-0309) or via email at
MEDCAC, formerly known as the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC), provides advice and recommendations to CMS regarding clinical issues. (For more information on MCAC, see the December 14, 1998
This meeting is open to the public. The Committee will hear oral presentations from the public for approximately 45 minutes. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, CMS may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by December 20, 2012. Your comments should focus on issues specific to the list of topics that we have proposed to the Committee. The list of research topics to be discussed at the meeting will be available on the following Web site prior to the meeting:
The Committee will deliberate openly on the topics under consideration. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Committee will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Committee will also allow a 15-minute unscheduled open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topics under consideration. At the conclusion of the day, the members will vote and the Committee will make its recommendation(s) to CMS.
CMS' Coverage and Analysis Group is coordinating meeting registration. While there is no registration fee, individuals must register to attend. You may register online at
This meeting will be held in a federal government building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons brought entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.
All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a).
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained 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. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Necessity of the Use of Food Product Categories in Food Facility Registrations and Updates to Food Product Categories.” FDA has developed this guidance in response to amendments made by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This guidance contains FDA's determination that information about food product categories in food facility registrations is necessary for a quick, accurate, and focused response to a food safety related issue or incident, an actual or potential bioterrorist incident, or other food-related emergency. The guidance also identifies the additional food product categories included as mandatory fields in food facility registrations, as determined appropriate by FDA.
Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to Office of Compliance, Division of Field Programs and Guidance, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-615), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Amy Barringer, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-615), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1988.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Necessity of the Use of Food Product Categories in Food Facility Registrations and Updates to Food Product Categories.” FDA has developed this guidance in response to amendments made by section 102 of FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353) to section 415(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350d(a)(2)).
FSMA, enacted on January 4, 2011, amended the food facility registration requirements of section 415 of the FD&C Act. Section 415(a)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 102 of FSMA, provides in relevant part that, when determined necessary by FDA through guidance, a registrant is required to submit a registration to FDA containing information necessary to notify FDA of the general food category (as identified in § 170.3 (21 CFR 170.3) or any other food categories, as determined appropriate by FDA, including by guidance) of any food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at such facility. This guidance contains FDA's determination that information about food product categories as identified in § 170.3 and the other food product categories is necessary for a quick, accurate, and focused response to a food safety related issue or incident, an actual or potential bioterrorist incident, or other food-related emergency. The guidance also identifies the additional food product categories included as mandatory fields in food facility registrations, as determined appropriate by FDA under section 102 of FSMA.
In the
As noted previously, section 415(a)(2) of the FD&C Act provides, in relevant part, that a food facility must submit to FDA a registration containing information about the general food category (as identified in § 170.3 or any other food category as determined appropriate by FDA, including “by guidance”) of a food manufactured/processed, packed or held at such facility, if we determine “through guidance” that such information is necessary. Because of Congress's explicit statutory authorization in section 415(a)(2) of the FD&C Act to effectuate binding requirements based on actions by guidance, this document is not subject to the usual restrictions in FDA's good guidance practice (GGP) regulations, such as the requirements that guidances not establish legally enforceable responsibilities and that they prominently display a statement of the document's nonbinding effect.
To comply with the GGP regulations and make sure that regulated entities and the public understand that guidance documents are nonbinding, FDA guidances ordinarily contain standard language explaining that guidances should be viewed only as recommendations unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited, and our guidances also ordinarily include the following standard paragraph:
“This guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance.”
We are not including this standard language in this guidance because it is not an accurate description of the effect of this guidance. This guidance contains findings that serve as the predicates for binding requirements on industry. As stated in “Guidance for Industry on Necessity of the Use of Food Product Categories in Registration of Food Facilities” (2003), which was issued under section 415 of the FD&C Act, as added by section 305 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-188), we found that inclusion of the food categories in § 170.3 in food facility registrations is necessary for a quick, accurate, and focused response to an actual or potential bioterrorist incident or other food-related emergency. Based in part on this finding, FDA's regulations for the registration of food facilities in 21 CFR part 1, subpart H currently require that a food facility submit a registration to FDA containing information on applicable food product categories as identified in § 170.3 for food manufactured/processed, packed, or held at such facility. As provided in section 102 of FSMA, this guidance contains FDA's finding that inclusion of other food categories in food facility registrations is also necessary to facilitate such rapid communications. In addition, this guidance sets forth the other food product categories to be included in food facility registrations determined to be appropriate by FDA for the purposes of food facility registration. Insofar as this guidance modifies food product categories for food facility registration under section 415 of the FD&C Act, it has binding effect. For these reasons, we are not including the standard guidance paragraph in this guidance.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in §§ 1.230 through 1.235 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0502.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
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.
On December 12, 2012, the committee will meet to discuss the various strategies used by the Agency to define and address teratogenic risk, including requiring REMS with ETASU. The discussion will include an evaluation of the different strategies and the decision framework for selecting risk management strategies for teratogens. The committee will discuss whether the risk management strategies, including REMS with ETASU, assure safe use, are not unduly burdensome to patient access to the drug, and to the extent practicable, minimize the burden to the health care delivery system.
On December 13, 2012, the committee will discuss two common risk management tools used to minimize the risk of teratogens—contraception and pregnancy testing. The committee will discuss considerations for standardizing recommendations for use of these two tools.
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 Kristina Toliver 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), 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.
Proposed Collection:
Request for Comments: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Ms. Cheryl Nelson, Project Officer, NIH, NHLBI, 6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7934, Bethesda, MD 20892-7934, or call non-toll-free number 301- 435-0451 or Email your request, including your address to:
Comments Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60-days of the date of this publication.
National Institutes of Health, the
Notice.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) hereby announces the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) Priority List of Needs in Pediatric Therapeutics for 2012. The BPCA seeks to improve the level of information on the safe and effective use of pharmaceuticals used to treat children. It requires that the NIH identify the drugs of highest priority for study in pediatric populations and publish a list of drugs/needs in pediatric therapeutics. This notice fulfills the requirement to publish that list.
The pediatric medical community, the public health community, and government agencies have recognized multiple gaps in knowledge regarding the use of therapeutics in children, including the correct dose, appropriate indications, side effects, and safety concerns of pharmaceuticals in the short- and long-term. These gaps have frequently resulted in inadequate labeling for pediatric use and in widespread off-label use of prescription drugs in children. Off-label use of a drug substantially limits the ability to gain clinical information of the drug product, such as appropriate dosing of a drug, changes in drug metabolism and response during growth and development, and important short- and long-term effects. Contributing factors to extensive off-label product use include limited access to patient populations for study, lack of knowledge related to the ethical conduct of clinical trials in
The
The initial BPCA legislation reauthorized an incentive program for on-patent drugs that met certain criteria that were first authorized in the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA). The BPCA also contains provisions for off-patent drugs and general support for pediatric product development that were not included in the FDAMA. The legislation, as it applies to the NIH, authorizes a research program through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with implementation through the NIH, specifically by the NICHD. The NICHD is responsible for the development of: (1) A priority list of needs in pediatric therapeutics, in consultation with the FDA and experts in pediatrics; (2) sponsorship of relevant pediatric clinical trials; and 3) submission of resulting clinical trial data to FDA for pediatric labeling changes.
Title V of Public Law 110-85, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2007, was enacted on September 27, 2007, as part of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. This legislation, which reauthorizes the BPCA (Section 409I of the Public Health Service Act), extends the 6-month patent exclusivity provision for currently on-patent drugs being studied for pediatric use, and also extends and expands the NIH research program that was established in the earlier law. The priority list procedure was revised to emphasize knowledge gaps in therapeutic areas in contrast to knowledge gaps about specific drug products.
The BPCA requires that the NIH, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration and experts in pediatric research, identify the drugs and therapeutic areas of highest priority for study in pediatric populations. Part of fulfilling the NIH's authority and responsibility outlined in the BPCA legislation is to establish a program for pediatric drug testing and development and to publish a list of drugs/needs in pediatric therapeutics. The BPCA Priority List consists of key therapeutic needs in the medical treatment of children and adolescents; it is organized by therapeutic area, which can be a group of conditions, a subgroup of the population, or a setting of care. The first priority list of off-patent drugs needing further study under the 2002 BPCA legislation was published in January 2003 in the
The Obstetric and Pediatric Pharmacology Branch of the NICHD has developed a prioritization process for determination of the needs in pediatric therapeutics. There are two main phases in the prioritization process. Phase I entails identifying therapeutic areas, which are general categories of conditions, diseases, settings of care, or populations with multiple therapeutic needs. Phase II involves determining more specific pediatric needs, including research associated with a particular drug, biologic, or device. Please visit the BPCA Web site for more details (
■ Availability of information concerning the safe and effective use of a drug in the pediatric population and the need for additional information;
■ Potential health benefits in the pediatric population resulting from new studies;
■ Possible need for reformulation of existing products;
■ Therapeutic gaps in pediatrics that may include developmental pharmacology, pharmacogenetic determinants of drug response, metabolism of drugs and biologics in children, and pediatric clinical trials;
The NICHD evaluates the current list of needs in pediatric therapeutics regularly to determine target areas for the coming calendar year. The NICHD sponsored the BPCA Annual Prioritization Meeting, held December 9-10, 2011, with stakeholders from the NIH, the FDA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as well as other pediatric organizations, societies, and patient advocates. The meeting allowed all stakeholders to review the present progress from ongoing research, to discuss lessons learned since the implementation of the BPCA legislation, and to discuss the proposed therapeutic areas from the 2011 recommendations for future study under the BPCA. Meeting minutes can be found on the BPCA Web site:
Below is an updated list of therapeutic areas and drugs that have been prioritized for study since the inception of the BPCA, which includes new areas of prioritization from the 2010 outreach nominations, recommendations from the 2011 working groups, and a summary of the NICHD's plans and progress in all of these areas. The NICHD also solicits input from the pediatric medical community on additional gaps in pediatric therapeutics for future consideration. All nominations should be submitted to Dr. Perdita Taylor-Zapata at the contact information below.
In accordance with the BPCA legislation, the list outlines priority needs in pediatric therapeutics for multiple therapeutic areas listed below. The complete list can be found on the BPCA Web site at the following address:
Dr. Perdita Taylor-Zapata via email at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors for Basic Sciences National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, 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.
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.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the Strategic Planning Workshop that will be convened by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) and was published in the
The Workshop is scheduled for October 29-30, 2012, and will now include sessions for public comment on both days on the material presented
More information about the Workshop may be found on the web at:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4080-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 29, 2012.
The parish of West Baton Rouge for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance [Category A and B], including direct federal assistance).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4080-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 29, 2012.
The parish of Pointe Coupee for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance, including direct federal assistance).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
General notice.
This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is formalizing and expanding an Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot program which revises the time frame for transmission by pilot participants of a subset of mandatory advance electronic information for air cargo. CBP regulations implementing the Trade Act of 2002 require advance information for air cargo to be submitted no later than the time of departure of the aircraft for the United States (from specified locations) or four hours prior to arrival in the United States for all other locations. The ACAS pilot is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit a subset of the required data elements (ACAS data) at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft destined to or transiting through the United States. This notice provides a description of the ACAS pilot, sets forth eligibility requirements for participation, and invites public comment on any aspect of the test.
CBP is accepting applications from new ACAS pilot participants until
Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues should be submitted via email to
Regina Park, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, via email at
Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), requires CBP to promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data interchange (EDI) system before the cargo is brought into or departs the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail, or truck). The required cargo information is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP.
On December 5, 2003, CBP published a final rule in the
In October 2010, the global counter-terrorism community disrupted a potential terrorist attack when concealed explosive devices were discovered in cargo on board aircraft destined for the United States. CBP can better prevent such attacks and strengthen air cargo supply chain security if the required time frame for the presentation of advance electronic cargo information is, in all cases, before the air cargo is loaded and early enough so that CBP has sufficient time to identify, target, and mitigate high-risk cargo. Therefore, CBP and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have collaborated with the private sector to identify strategies to strengthen air cargo supply chain security, including developing a mechanism to collect cargo information at the earliest point practicable in the supply chain.
As a result of this collaboration, in December 2010, four express consignment air courier companies (“express couriers”) volunteered to provide CBP with a subset of the data elements required by 19 CFR 122.48a as early as possible before cargo is loaded onto an aircraft so that the requisite targeting could occur in the pre-loading air cargo environment, thus establishing the ACAS pilot. Since then, three passenger carriers, one-all cargo carrier, and one freight forwarder have joined the ACAS pilot and are operational. As of the summer of 2012, an additional twelve passenger carriers, two all-cargo carriers, and fifteen freight forwarders are in the process of testing or development to become operational ACAS pilot participants or have actively expressed an interest in doing so. CBP is in ongoing communication with stakeholders from all stages of the air cargo supply chain in an effort to enhance ACAS effectiveness and functionality from an industry perspective. In response to a request from stakeholders, on July 27, 2012, CBP published “Air Cargo Advance Screening Pilot Frequently Asked Questions” at
CBP is now formalizing and expanding the pilot to include other eligible participants in the air cargo environment, including other express couriers, passenger carriers, all-cargo carriers, and freight forwarders.
CBP has statutory authority to collect advance electronic cargo information pursuant to the Trade Act, and has implemented this authority in 19 CFR 122.48a. CBP has set forth the procedure for conducting test programs, such as the ACAS pilot, in 19 CFR 101.9.
Under 19 CFR 122.48a, the following advance electronic information is required to be transmitted to CBP for air cargo:
Paragraph (d) of 19 CFR 122.48a specifies, based on the type of shipment, what information the air carrier must transmit to CBP and what information other eligible filers may transmit to CBP. For non-consolidated shipments, the air carrier must transmit to CBP the above cargo information for the air waybill record. For consolidated shipments, the air carrier must transmit to CBP the above cargo information that is applicable to the master air waybill, and the air carrier must transmit a subset of the above information for all associated house air waybills, unless another eligible filer transmits this information to CBP. For split shipments, the air carrier must submit an additional subset of this information for each house air waybill.
As noted above, for any inbound aircraft required to enter under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have commercial cargo aboard, CBP must electronically receive the above information regarding that cargo through a CBP-approved EDI system no later than the time of the departure of the aircraft for the United States from any foreign port or place in North America, including locations in Mexico, Central America, South America (from north of the Equator only), the Caribbean, and Bermuda; or no later than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft in the United States for aircraft departing for the United States from any other foreign area.
Participants in the ACAS pilot agree to provide a subset of the required 19 CFR 122.48a data elements (ACAS data) at the earliest point practicable before
In the ACAS pilot, participants agree to submit the ACAS data to CBP through a CBP-approved EDI system. While the CBP-approved EDI under 19 CFR 122.48a is Air AMS, ACAS data may be transmitted to CBP as specified below in the section on eligibility requirements. CBP and TSA
CBP is seeking participation from stakeholders in the air cargo environment, including express couriers, passenger carriers, all-cargo carriers, and freight forwarders. There are no restrictions with regard to organization size, location, or commodity type. However, participation is limited to those parties with sufficient information technology infrastructure and support, as described below. Prospective ACAS pilot participants will need to assess whether they can fulfill the following eligibility requirements:
Those interested in participating in the ACAS pilot should submit an email to
Pilot participants will receive technical, operational, and policy guidance through all stages of pilot participation—from planning to implementation—on the necessary steps for the transmission of ACAS data. Therefore, the number of applicants CBP will accept will depend on CBP's technical, fiscal, and personnel capacity to provide the necessary guidance. Once applications are processed, those selected as ACAS pilot participants will be notified by CBP by email.
ACAS pilot participants are to provide the ACAS data to CBP at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of cargo onto the aircraft ultimately destined for or transiting through the United States. In addition to the submission of the ACAS data to CBP, ACAS pilot participants are to: (1) Mitigate, according to TSA screening protocols, any threat which is identified by the NTC; (2) respond promptly with complete and accurate information when contacted by the NTC with questions regarding the data submitted; (3) follow any Do Not Load instructions; and (4) partake in regular teleconferences or meetings established by CBP, when necessary, to ensure any issues or challenges regarding the pilot are communicated and addressed.
Participation in the ACAS pilot does not impose any legally binding obligations on either CBP or TSA or the participant. In addition, CBP does not intend to enforce or levy punitive measures if ACAS pilot participants are non-compliant with these conditions of participation of the pilot.
ACAS pilot participants will send and receive advance security filing data and related action messages for all air cargo to CBP. The ACAS pilot uses messages based on existing industry standard message formats (Cargo-IMP and CAMIR-Air). This will simplify the process for establishing a connection with and transmitting ACAS data to CBP and will increase the likelihood that participants are able to reuse existing system software. While the overall form of the ACAS pilot message formats is similar to the form of the Cargo-IMP and CAMIR-Air message formats on which it is based, the ACAS pilot message formats have slight differences in edits, timing, and new coded values, as needed to accommodate only the necessary data elements.
Currently, three possible filing options have been identified:
•
•
•
ACAS pilot participants are responsible for all costs incurred as a result of their participation in the pilot and such costs will vary, depending on their pre-existing infrastructures. Costs may include carrier communication requirements, such as submission and receipt of data, and the cost of implementing the necessary screening protocols.
While the benefits to ACAS pilot participants will vary, several advantages of joining may include:
• Increases in security by leveraging DHS threat and other data to employ a risk-based approach to improve air cargo security through targeted screening;
• Gains in efficiencies by automating the identification of high risk cargo for enhanced screening before it is consolidated and loaded on aircraft;
• Establishment of mitigation protocols for high-risk shipments;
• The ability to provide input into CBP and TSA efforts to establish, test, and refine the interface between government and industry communication systems for the implementation of ACAS;
• Ensuring a variety of business models are considered in the development and implementation of ACAS;
• Facilitation of corporate preparedness for future mandatory implementation of ACAS submission requirements; and
• Reduction in paper processes related to cargo screening requirements which may increase carrier efficiency.
Participation in the ACAS pilot does not alter the participant's obligations to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including 19 CFR 122.48a, and participants will still be subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance. In addition, submission of data under the ACAS pilot does not exempt the participant from TSA security program requirements or any statutory sanctions in the event a controlled substance or other prohibited article is introduced into the United States on a conveyance owned and/or operated by the participant.
The ACAS pilot will run for six months from October 24, 2012. While the pilot is ongoing, the results will be evaluated and a determination will be made as to whether the pilot will be extended. If the pilot is extended, CBP will publish another notice in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The revised information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
To stop the phase-in of the reduction in the amount of subsidy a PHA receives under the new operating fund formula, PHAs submit a “stop-loss” package to HUD demonstrating conversion to asset management. To appeal the amount of subsidy on any one of the permitted bases of appeal, PHAs submit an appeal request to HUD.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this revised information collection. Comments should refer to the revised information collection by name/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard., Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
The Department will submit the revised
This notice also lists the following information:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent electronically to
Paul Joice at 202-402-4608 (this is not a toll-free number) or
The Department of Housing and Urban Development will submit the proposed extension of information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Ivery W. Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1672 x5628 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The information collection request for OMB review seeks to extend OMB 2502-0589, a currently established OMB collection, for an additional three years.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and an environmental assessment (EA) for the Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge, NWR), located approximately 30 miles southwest of Amarillo, Texas, for public review and comment. The
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by November 23, 2012. We will announce upcoming public meetings in local news media.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. You may request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please contact Lynn Nymeyer, Refuge Manager, or Joseph Lujan, Natural Resource Planner.
Lynn Nymeyer, Refuge Manager, Buffalo Lake NWR, CCP—Project, P. O. Box 179, Umbarger, TX 79091; phone: 806-499-3382; fax: 806-499-3254.
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Buffalo Lake NWR. We started this process through a notice in the
The Buffalo Lake NWR, which consists of over 7,677 acres, is located approximately 30 miles southwest of Amarillo, Texas. The primary purpose of the refuge is to protect wintering waterfowl and short-grass prairie habitat. The refuge was officially established on November 17, 1959, and continues to provide critical habitat for migratory waterfowl and grassland bird species.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
Formal scoping began with publication of a notice of intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (EA) in the
During the public scoping process with which we started work on this draft CCP, we, other governmental partners, Tribes, and the public, raised multiple issues. Our draft CCP addresses them. A full description of each alternative is in the EA. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.
In addition to using any methods in
• Buffalo Lake NWR Headquarters Office, Umbarger, TX 79091, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
• Our Web site:
• The following public libraries:
We consider comments substantive if they:
• Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document;
• Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental assessment (EA);
• Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the EA; and/or
• Provide new or additional information relevant to the assessment.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP and finding of no significant impact.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the American Museum of Natural History that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the cultural affiliation determination reported in the Notice of Intent to Repatriate published in the
In the
The cultural affiliation of the 34 cultural items is Hutsnuwu Tlingit, as indicated through museum records and consultation with representatives of Angoon Community Association, Kootznoowoo Incorporated, and Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Chaik Bay lies within the traditional territory of the Hutsnuwu Tlingit. These cultural items were claimed on behalf of the
In the
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Angoon Community Association and the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, telephone (212) 769-5837, before November 23, 2012. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Angoon Community Association and Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Angoon Community Association and Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of its determination to conduct, and scheduling of, a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Jennifer Merrill (202-205-3188), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Annual invitation for public nominations by U.S. citizens for service on NASA science advisory subcommittees.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and in accordance with the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies signed on December 17, 2010, signed by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President, NASA announces its annual invitation for public nominations for service on NASA science advisory subcommittees. These science advisory subcommittees report to the Science Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). U.S. citizens may nominate individuals and
The following qualifications/experience are highly desirable in nominees, and should be clearly presented in their nomination letters:
• At least ten years (10) post-Ph.D. research experience including publications in the scientific field of the subcommittee they are nominated or comparable experience,
• Leadership in scientific and/or education and public outreach fields as evidenced by award of prizes, invitation to national and international meetings as speaker, organizer of scientific meetings/workshops, or comparable experience;
• Participation in NASA programs either as member of NASA mission science team, Research & Analysis program, membership on an advisory/working group or a review panel, or comparable experience;
• Good knowledge of NASA programs in the scientific field of the subcommittee they are applying for, including the latest NASA Science Plan (available as a link from
• Knowledge of the latest Decadal Survey conducted by the National Research Council or other relevant advisory reports for the scientific field of the subcommittee.
Nominees from any category of organizations or institutions within the U.S. are welcome, including, but not limited to, educational, industrial, and not-for-profit organizations, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), NASA Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and other Government agencies. Nominees need not be presently affiliated with any organization or institution.
These are not full-time positions. Successful nominees will be required to attend meetings of the subcommittee approximately two to four times a year, either in person (NASA covers travel-related expenses for this non-compensated appointment) or via telecon/WebEx. Successful nominees who are not already U.S. Government employees will become Special Government Employees (SGEs). All successful nominees will be required to submit a confidential financial disclosure form and undergo a conflict of interest review and clearance by the NASA Office of the General Counsel before they are officially appointed.
The deadline for NASA receipt of all public nominations is November14, 2012.
Nominations and self-nominations from interested U.S. citizens must be sent to NASA in letter form, be signed, and must include the name of specific NASA science advisory subcommittee of interest for NASA consideration. Nominations and self-nomination letters are limited to specifying interest in only one (1) NASA science advisory subcommittee per year. The following additional information is required to be attached to each nomination and self-nomination letter (i.e., cover letter): (1) Professional resume (one-page maximum); (2) professional biography (one-page maximum). All public nomination packages must be submitted electronically via email to NASA; paper-based documents sent through postal mail (hard-copies) will not be accepted.
Please submit the nomination as a single package containing cover letter and both required attachments electronically to the specific email address identified below for the science subcommittee of interest:
To obtain further information on NASA's science advisory subcommittees, please visit the NAC Science Committee's subcommittee Web site noted below. For any questions, please contact Ms. Marian Norris, Advisory Committee Specialist, Strategic Integration & Management Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452.
NASA's five (5) current science advisory subcommittees are listed below. Additional information about these science subcommittees may be found at the NAC Science Committee's subcommittee Web site at
• Astrophysics Subcommittee (APS)—The Astrophysics Subcommittee is a standing subcommittee of the NAC Science Committee supporting the advisory needs of the NASA Administrator, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), SMD's Astrophysics Division, and other NASA Mission Directorates as required. The scope of the APS includes projects and observational and theoretical study of the origins, evolution, and destiny of the universe and the search for and study of Earth-like planets and habitable, extrasolar environments. In addition to scientific research, the scope encompasses considerations of the development of near-term enabling technologies, systems, and computing and information management capabilities, developments with the potential to provide long-term improvements in future operational systems, as well as training of the next generation of astronomers, and education and public outreach.
• Earth Science Subcommittee (ESS)—The Earth Science Subcommittee is a standing subcommittee of the NAC Science Committee supporting the advisory needs of the NASA Administrator, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), SMD's Earth Science Division (ESD), and other NASA Mission Directorates as required. The scope of the ESS includes the advancement of scientific knowledge of the Earth system through space-based observation and the pioneering use of these observations in conjunction with process studies, data assimilation and modeling to provide the Nation with improved capability to: Predict climate variability, global change, and weather; mitigate and respond to natural hazards; and improve the scientific basis for policy decisions. In addition to observations and scientific research, the scope encompasses the development of computing and information management capabilities and other enabling technologies, including those with the potential to improve future operational satellite and ground systems.
• Heliophysics Subcommittee (HPS)—Heliophysics Subcommittee is a standing subcommittee of the NAC Science Committee supporting the
• Planetary Protection Subcommittee (PPS)—Planetary Protection Subcommittee is a standing subcommittee of the NAC Science Committee supporting the advisory needs of the Administrator, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), SMD's Planetary Science Division, NASA's Planetary Protection Officer and other NASA Mission Directorates as required. The scope of the PPS includes programs, policies, plans, hazard identification and risk assessment, and other matters pertinent to the Agency's responsibilities for biological planetary protection. This scope includes consideration of NASA planetary protection policy documents, implementation plans, and organization. The subcommittee will review and recommend appropriate planetary protection categorizations for all bodies of the solar system to which spacecraft will be sent. The scope also includes the development of near-term enabling technologies, systems, and capabilities, as well as developments with the potential to provide long-term improvements in future operational systems to support planetary protection. Outside the scope of the Subcommittee's responsibilities are issues that pertain solely to the quality and interpretation of scientific experiments and data in support of solar system exploration.
• Planetary Science Subcommittee (PSS)—Planetary Science Subcommittee is a standing subcommittee of the NAC Science Committee supporting the advisory needs of the NASA Administrator, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), SMD's Planetary Science Division (PSD), and other NASA Mission Directorates as required. The scope of the PSS includes all aspects of planetary science, scientific exploration of the Moon and Mars, the robotic exploration of the solar system, astrobiology, space- and ground-based research, technology development, planning, and training required to support these science areas. In addition to scientific research, the scope encompasses considerations of the development of near-term enabling technologies, systems, and computing and information management capabilities, as well as developments with the potential to provide long-term improvements in future operational systems. Responsibility for biological planetary protection is outside the purview of the PSS and resides with the Planetary Protection Subcommittee (PPS).
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. NCUA is proposing a data collection change to the credit union Profile as well as the 5300 Call Report. NCUA is proposing to add a new account to the Contacts section of the Profile to identify the initial date of election or appointment of each official to help assess the longevity of credit union board members. Additionally, NCUA is planning to add a question to the Regulatory section of the Profile where credit unions will be required to certify their compliance with 12 CFR 701.4. On the 5300 Call Report, NCUA will revise the regulatory reporting requirements by eliminating the data collection on modified loans and target data collection efforts on loans meeting the definition of a troubled debt restructured loan under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Comments will be accepted until November 28, 2012.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the NCUA Contact and the OMB Reviewer listed below:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Tracy Crews at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at (703) 518-6444.
NCUA is amending the currently approved collection for 3133-0004. Two specific forms are used, NCUA Form 5300 and NCUA Profile Form 4501A, also known as the Call Report and Profile, respectively. Section 741.6 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations requires all federally insured credit unions to submit a Call Report quarterly. 12 CFR 741.6. The information enables the NCUA to monitor credit unions whose share accounts are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. NCUA uses the information collected from these Call Reports to fulfill its mission of supervising credit unions and the Federal Reserve Board uses it to monitor and control the nation's money supply and the system of financial institutions. Congress and various state legislatures use this information to monitor, regulate, and control credit unions and financial institutions. The changes made to the Profile and Call Report form for December 2012 will help the National Credit Union Administration assess the longevity of credit union board members and provide data to assess financial risks and loan practices of credit unions. There is a decrease of 4,515 hours from the last submission (2011). The decrease is noted as an adjustment of the number of credit unions completing Form 5300 from 7,264 federally insured credit
The NCUA requests that you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Proposal for the following collection of information:
DBI, Inc. (DBI or Licensee), is the holder of License No. 49-29301-01 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to part 34 of Title 10 of the
This Confirmatory Order (Order) is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on September 6, 2012, in Arlington, Texas.
From July 1, 2011, through July 17, 2012, the NRC conducted a safety and security inspection of the use of byproduct material for industrial radiographic operations conducted under DBI's NRC license. On July 25, 2011, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), Region IV, began an investigation (OI Case No. 4-2011-060) to determine if the Licensee willfully failed to (1) provide a qualified radiographer to observe radiographic operations, and (2) to supervise a radiographer's assistant while conducting radiographic operations. The investigation by OI was concluded on March 14, 2012. By letter dated August 8, 2012, the NRC transmitted the results of the inspection and the investigation in NRC Inspection Report 030-37817/2011-001 and Investigation Report 4-2011-060 (Agencywide Dockets Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12221A362). Based on the results of the inspection and the evidence developed during the investigation, four apparent violations of NRC requirements were identified. The apparent violations involved the failure to: (1) Conduct a survey when approaching the radiography camera and guide tube; (2) have at least one other qualified individual present while performing radiography; (3) supervise the assistant radiographer; and (4) provide complete and accurate information to the Commission. In addition, the NRC is concerned that willfulness may be associated with the apparent failures to have at least one other qualified individual present while performing radiography, supervise the assistant radiographer, and provide complete and accurate information to the Commission.
By letter dated August 8, 2012, the NRC informed DBI that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement for the apparent violations. The NRC offered DBI the opportunity to request (1) a predecisional enforcement conference, or (2) ADR. In response, on August 15, 2012, DBI requested ADR to resolve the matter with the NRC.
On September 6, 2012, the NRC and DBI representatives met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. This Confirmatory Order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process.
In response to the NRC's offer, DBI requested use of the NRC ADR process to resolve differences it had with the NRC. During that ADR session, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the agreement consisted of the following:
The NRC recognizes the corrective actions, associated with the apparent violations, that DBI has implemented or plans to implement, which include:
• Retraining the radiographer and the radiographer's assistant prior to allowing them to conduct radiographic operations.
• Distribution of an email to Operations Managers and Assistant Radiation Safety Officers (ARSO) concerning the safety violations. A verification sheet for recipients to sign and date, then return to the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer (RSO).
• Conducting an internal investigation to determine the root cause of the violations.
• Conducting unannounced field audits to help ensure that radiographers and assistant radiographers are implementing radiation safety requirements.
• Conducting extra (more than required by the NRC) periodic unannounced field audits.
• Permanently reassigning two individuals to serve as regional RSOs.
• Submitting for publication in an industry periodical, an article, from DBI's president documenting DBI's violations and the consequences for noncompliance.
During the ADR mediation session, an agreement in principle was reached in which DBI agreed to take the following additional actions:
A. DBI will enhance its training program for employees conducting radiographic operations (radiography or licensed activities). The goal of the changes is to conduct NRC-licensed activities safely and deter future deliberate violations by ensuring that employees, including company managers, understand the importance the NRC places on violations associated with deliberate misconduct and careless disregard. The program will consist of training for current employees conducting NRC-licensed activities and future employees conducting NRC-licensed activities. The program will also provide for annual refresher training. DBI will complete the following activities in support of the training program:
1.
• Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will contract with an external contractor to develop training modules on the topics identified in Condition A.3 for its current employees, including company managers, who are engaged in NRC-licensed activities.
• At least 15 days before the time that DBI intends to execute the contract with the external contractor, DBI will submit, for NRC review and approval, the resume of the contractor recommended to develop the training modules.
• At least 15 days prior to the start of training, but no later than 30 days after executing the contract with the external training contractor, DBI will submit, for NRC review and approval, an outline of the topics to be covered during the training session(s). The training will include the topics identified in Condition A.3.
• The training for current employees will be conducted by the contractor and must be completed within 180 days of the NRC's approval of the outline of the course topics.
• DBI will assess the effectiveness of the training through written testing. Any employee that does not pass the test will receive remedial training, and will be retested within 15 days. Within 30 days of completing the training for all current employees, DBI will provide to the NRC: (1) a letter stating that the training as specified is complete, and (2) the results of the employee testing process. The letter will be sent to the NRC at: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas 76011-4511.
2.
Within 270 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will submit to the NRC for review and approval, the training program and associated procedure(s) that describe the initial training which must be provided to future employees who will be conducting NRC-licensed activities and the annual refresher training that will be conducted for those employees who are performing NRC-licensed activities. The submittal to the NRC will include: (1) An outline of the topics to be covered during the initial training and the annual refresher training sessions, (2) any procedure(s) that provides guidance on how the training program is conducted, (3) the details of the testing that will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the training, and (4) the minimum qualifications of the trainer. The topics to be covered must include the topics discussed in Condition A.3 below.
3.
The contractor identified in Condition A.1 will also make enhancements to DBI's training program. The contractor will modify the training procedures for current and future employees, and annual refresher training to include the following:
• For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, and annual refresher training, the elements of willfulness discussed in Chapter 6 of the NRC Enforcement Manual, including examples of willful violations (careless disregard and deliberate misconduct), the fact that deliberate violations may be prosecuted criminally, the potential enforcement sanctions that the NRC may take against individuals who engage in deliberate misconduct (10 CFR 30.10), and examples of enforcement actions that the NRC has taken against individuals (publicly available on the NRC Web site).
• Training on how to conduct Cause Evaluations of radiography events and events involving significant violations. This training may be limited to DBI managers identified by the Licensee, who would be responsible for investigating and reviewing events and certain significant violations.
• For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, and annual refresher training, the requirements of 10 CFR 30.9, “Completeness and Accuracy of Information,” and 10 CFR 30.7, “Employee Protection.”
• For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, instruction on the importance of understanding and following DBI's internal procedures and the regulatory requirements associated with radiographic operations. This instruction must include a discussion of past radiography events that have resulted in overexposures to individuals and the health effects from these events. The instruction must show that DBI's internal procedures and the NRC's regulatory requirements are designed to prevent overexposures and the associated health effects.
• For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, a discussion on the NRC's Safety Culture Policy Statement, and DBI management's support of the policy. DBI will provide a copy of NUREG/BR-0500, “Safety Culture Policy Statement,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML11165A021) to its employees.
• For all current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, and annual refresher training, the requirements to: perform radiological surveys when approaching the radiography camera and the guide tube, as required by 10 CFR 34.49(b); have at least one other qualified individual present while performing radiography, as required by 10 CFR 34.41(a); and ensure that radiographers' assistants are properly supervised while performing radiographic operations, as required by 10 CFR 34.46(c).
4.
DBI will maintain training records for 5 years. The records must include: the date of training, the name of the instructor, the attendees, and the test results. The records will be available for NRC review when requested.
B. Operating and Emergency Procedures
Within 270 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will develop and submit to the NRC, for review and approval, a request for a license amendment including the following procedures:
1. A procedure that details how DBI management and the corporate RSO will provide oversight of DBI field office(s), including unannounced field audits.
2. A procedure for conducting field audits of radiographic operations performed in NRC jurisdiction. In addition to the audit requirements in 10 CFR 34.43(e), every radiographer conducting NRC-licensed activities will be audited, at intervals not to exceed 24 months, by an individual independent of the field office being audited. Audits must, if possible, be unannounced; and must include a review to establish that assistant radiographers are properly supervised, at least one other qualified individual is present while performing
3. A procedure which describes DBI's cause evaluation program, (e.g. when and how to conduct cause evaluations, the various types of cause evaluations, training requirements for individuals performing cause evaluations, and how to document cause evaluations).
4. A procedure to ensure that audit records must be maintained for 5 years. The audit records will include the following information: the date of the audit, the name of the person conducting the audit, the name of individuals contacted by auditor, the audit findings, corrective actions, and follow-up (if any). The records will be available for NRC review when requested.
C. Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will issue a company policy statement to its employees. The Policy Statement will provide DBI management's position on the importance of (1) maintaining security of licensed material, (2) the ethics of complying with regulatory requirements, (3) the awareness that deliberate violations are unacceptable, and (4) the need to ensure the primacy of safety over competing goals. DBI will provide a copy of its Policy Statement to the NRC at: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas 76011-4511.
D. Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI must pay a civil penalty of $3,500. DBI will pay the civil penalty in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254, “Payment Methods” and by submitting to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made.
On October 3, 2012, DBI consented to issuing this Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. DBI further agreed that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing.
Since DBI has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Item III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.
I find that DBI's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that the DBI's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and DBI's consent, this Confirmatory Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 34, and 150
A. DBI will enhance its training program for employees conducting radiographic operations (radiography or licensed activities). The goal of the changes is to conduct NRC-licensed activities safely and deter future deliberate violations by ensuring that employees, including company managers, understand the importance the NRC places on violations associated with deliberate misconduct and careless disregard. The program will consist of training for current employees conducting NRC-licensed activities and future employees conducting NRC-licensed activities. The program will also provide for annual refresher training. DBI will complete the following activities in support of the training program:
1.
a. Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will contract with an external contractor to develop training modules on the topics identified in Condition A.3 for its current employees, including company managers, who are involved in NRC-licensed activities.
b. At least 15 days before the time that DBI intends to execute the contract with the external contractor, DBI will submit, for NRC review and approval, the resume of the contractor recommended to develop the training modules.
c. At least 15 days prior to the start of training, but no later than 30 days after executing the contract with the external training contractor, DBI will submit for NRC review and approval, an outline of the topics to be covered during the training session(s). The training will include the topics identified in Condition A.3.
d. The training for current employees will be conducted by the contractor and must be completed within 180 days of the NRC's approval of the outline of the course topics.
e. DBI will assess the effectiveness of the training through written testing. Any employee that does not pass the test will receive remedial training, and will be retested within 15 days. Within 30 days of completing the training for all current employees, DBI will provide to the NRC: (1) A letter stating that the training as specified is complete, and (2) the results of the employee testing process. The letter will be sent to the NRC at: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas 76011-4511.
2.
Within 270 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will submit to the NRC for review and approval, a request for a license amendment including the training program and associated procedure(s) that describe the initial training which must be provided to future employees who will be conducting NRC-licensed activities and the annual refresher training that will be conducted for those employees who are performing NRC-licensed activities. The submittal to the NRC will include: (1) An outline of the topics to be covered during the initial training and the annual refresher training sessions, (2) any procedure(s) that provides guidance on how the training program is conducted, (3) the details of the testing that will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the training, and (4) the minimum qualifications of the trainer. The topics to be covered must include the topics discussed in Condition A.3 below.
3.
The contractor identified in Condition A.1 will also make enhancements to DBI's training program. The contractor will modify the training procedures to include the following:
a. For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, initial and annual refresher training on the elements of willfulness discussed in the NRC Enforcement Manual, including examples of willful violations (careless disregard and deliberate misconduct), the fact that deliberate violations may be prosecuted criminally, the potential enforcement sanctions that the NRC may take against individuals who engage in deliberate misconduct (10 CFR 30.10), and examples of enforcement actions that the NRC has taken against individuals (publicly available on the NRC Web site).
b. Training on how to conduct Cause Evaluations of radiography events and events involving significant violations. This training may be limited to DBI managers identified by the Licensee, who would be responsible for investigating and reviewing events and certain significant violations.
c. For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, initial and annual refresher training on the requirements of 10 CFR 30.9, “Completeness and Accuracy of Information,” and 10 CFR 30.7, “Employee Protection.”
d. For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, initial and annual refresher training on the importance of understanding and following DBI's internal procedures and the regulatory requirements associated with radiographic operations. This instruction must include a discussion of past radiography events that have resulted in overexposures to individuals and the health effects from these events. The instruction must show that DBI's internal procedures and the NRC's regulatory requirements are designed to prevent overexposures and the associated health effects.
e. For current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, initial and annual refresher training on the NRC's Safety Culture Policy Statement, and DBI management's support of the policy. DBI will provide a copy of NUREG/BR-0500, “Safety Culture Policy Statement,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML11165A021) to its employees.
f. For all current and future employees involved in NRC-licensed activities, initial and annual refresher training on the requirements to: perform radiological surveys when approaching the radiography camera and the guide tube, as required by 10 CFR 34.49(b); have at least one other qualified individual present while performing radiography as required by 10 CFR 34.41(a); and ensure that radiographers assistants are properly supervised while conducting radiographic operations, as required by 10 CFR 34.46(c).
4.
DBI must maintain training records for 5 years. The records must include: the date of training, the name of the instructor, the attendees, and the test results. The records will be available for NRC review when requested.
B. Revise Operating and Emergency Procedures:
Within 270 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will develop and submit to the NRC, for review and approval, a request for a license amendment including the following procedures:
1. A procedure that details how DBI management and the corporate RSO will provide oversight of DBI field office(s), including unannounced field audits.
2. A procedure for conducting field audits of radiographic operations performed in NRC jurisdiction. In addition to the audit requirements in 10 CFR 34.43(e), every radiographer conducting NRC-licensed activities will be audited, at intervals not to exceed 24 months, by an individual independent of the field office being audited. Audits must, if possible, be unannounced; and must include a review to establish that assistant radiographers are properly supervised, at least one other qualified individual present while performing radiography, and proper surveys are conducted when an individual approaches the radiographic camera and guide tube. Each individual involved in NRC-licensed activities must be audited at least three times per calendar year.
3. A procedure which describes DBI's cause evaluation program, (e.g. when and how to conduct cause evaluations, the various types of cause evaluations, training requirements for individuals performing cause evaluations, and how to document cause evaluations).
4. A procedure to ensure that audit records must be maintained for 5 years. The audit records will include the following information: the date of the audit, the name of the person conducting the audit, the name of individuals contacted by auditor, the audit findings, the corrective actions, and the follow-up (if any). The records will be available for NRC review when requested.
C. Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI will issue a company policy statement to its employees. The Policy Statement will provide DBI management's position on the importance of (1) maintaining security of NRC-licensed material, (2) the ethics of complying with regulatory requirements, (3) the awareness that deliberate violations are unacceptable, and (4) the need to ensure the primacy of safety over competing goals. DBI will provide a copy of its Policy Statement to the NRC at: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas 76011-4511.
D. Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, DBI must pay a civil penalty of $3,500. DBI will pay the civil penalty in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254, “Payment Methods” and by submitting to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by DBI of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than DBI, may request a hearing within 20 days of its publication in the
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
If a person (other than DBI) requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date this Confirmatory Order is published in the
A request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add Priority Mail Contract 45 to the competitive product list, along with a new contract. This notice informs the public of the filing, invite public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-4 and CP2013-4 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 45 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 25, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-4 and CP2013-4 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 25, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add Priority Mail Contract & First-Class Package Service Contract 1 to the competitive product list, including a related contract. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-5 and CP2013-5 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 1 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 25, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
Contract Term I.E. indicates that the customer can request the use of Package Intercept service at a negotiated rate. The Postal Service's workpapers do not take into account the customer's ability to use Package Intercept service for a negotiated rate in demonstrating that the contract will cover its attributable cost.
Please provide revised supporting workpapers that demonstrate that the contract as a whole will cover its attributable cost taking into account the customer's ability to use Package Intercept service at a negotiated rate. Response to the supplemental information request is due no later than October 24, 2012.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-5 and CP2013-5 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 25, 2012.
4. Response to the supplemental information request is due no later than October 24, 2012.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements.
Applicants request an order that would permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval and that would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements.
Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”) and Collins Capital Investments, LLC (the “Advisor”) (collectively, “Applicants”).
The application was filed March 7, 2012, and amended on June 26, 2012 and October 18, 2012.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on November 13, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Joseph C. Neuberger, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202; Kent A. Windhorst, Collins Capital Investments, LLC, 806 Douglas Road, Suite 570, Coral Gables, FL 33134.
Jaea F. Hahn, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6870 or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust is organized as a series investment company and currently consists of 27 series, one of which is advised by the Advisor.
2. Under the terms of each Advisory Agreement, the Advisor will provide the Funds with overall management services and as it deems appropriate, continuously review, supervise and administer each Fund's investment program, subject to the supervision of, and policies established by the Board. For the investment management services it will provide to each Fund, the Advisor will receive the fee specified in the Advisory Agreement from such Fund based on the average daily net assets of the Fund. The Advisory Agreement permits the Advisor, subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate certain responsibilities to one or more subadvisors (“Subadvisors”). The Advisor has entered into subadvisory agreements with various Subadvisors (“Subadvisory Agreements”) to provide investment advisory services to the Funds.
3. Applicants request an order to permit the Advisor, subject to Board approval, to select certain Subadvisors to manage all or a portion of the assets of a Fund or Funds pursuant to a Subadvisory Agreement and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Subadvisor that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust or of the Advisor, other than by reason of serving as a subadvisor to one or more of the Funds (“Affiliated Subadvisor”).
4. Applicants also request an order exempting the Funds from certain disclosure provisions described below that may require the Applicants to disclose fees paid by the Advisor or a Fund to each Subadvisor. Applicants seek an order to permit the Trust to disclose for a Fund (as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Advisor and any Affiliated Subadvisor; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisors other than Affiliated Subadvisors (collectively, “Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). Any Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadvisor will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated Subadvisor.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been approved by a vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory
4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of a registered investment company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require a registered investment company to include in its financial statement information about investment advisory fees.
5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Advisor subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Subadvisors who are best suited to achieve the Fund's investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisors is substantially equivalent to that of the individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Funds and may preclude the Funds from acting promptly when the Advisor and Board consider it appropriate to hire Subadvisors or amend Subadvisory Agreements. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreements and any Subadvisory Agreements with Affiliated Subadvisors will remain subject to the shareholder approval requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
7. If a new Subadvisor is retained in reliance on the requested order, the Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadvisor pursuant to the following procedures (“Modified Notice and Access Procedures”): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadvisor is hired for any Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information Statement;
A “Multi-manager Information Statement” will meet the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement, except as modified by the requested order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. Multi-manager Information Statements will be filed electronically with the Commission via the EDGAR system.
8. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief will benefit shareholders of the Funds because it will improve the Advisor's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Subadvisors. Applicants state that the Advisor may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Subadvisor's “posted” amounts if the Advisor is not required to disclose the Subadvisors' fees to the public.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder before offering the Fund's shares to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. Each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the manager of managers structure described in the application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Advisor has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisors and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadvisor within 90 days after the hiring of the new Subadvisor pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
4. The Advisor will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Affiliated Subadvisor without that agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund.
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination and selection of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. When a Subadvisor change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Subadvisor, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Advisor or the Affiliated Subadvisor derives an inappropriate advantage.
7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then existing Independent Trustees.
8. Each Advisor will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Advisor on a per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadvisor during the applicable quarter.
9. Whenever a Subadvisor is hired or terminated, the Advisor will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Advisor.
10. The Advisor will provide general management services to each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Fund's assets and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will (i) set each Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisors to manage all or part of a Fund's assets; (iii) when appropriate,
11. No trustee or officer of the Trust, or of a Fund, or director or officer of the Advisor, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a Subadvisor, except for (a) ownership of interests in the Advisor or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Advisor; or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Subadvisor or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Subadvisor.
12. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 102.01 and 103.00 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to permit the consideration of stockholders and trading volume in the company's home country market or primary trading market outside the United States, provided such market is a regulated stock exchange, when determining the qualification for initial listing under Section 102.01 of a company from outside North America. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of 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 Sections 102.01 and 103.00 of the Manual to permit the consideration of stockholders and trading volume in the company's home country market or primary trading market outside the United States, provided such market is a regulated stock exchange, when determining the qualification for initial listing under Section 102.01 of a company from outside North America.
Section 102.01A of the Manual sets forth the Exchange's minimum initial listing requirements with respect to distribution for companies seeking to list under the Exchange's “domestic” initial listing standards.
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 102.01B and 103.00 to provide that, in connection with the listing of any issuer from outside North America, the Exchange will have the discretion, but will not be required, to consider holders and trading volume in the company's home country market or primary trading market outside the United States in determining whether a company is qualified for listing under Section 102.01, provided such market is a regulated stock exchange.
The Exchange notes that it has been its experience that where there is a liquid market for a company's securities in its home country or primary trading market and where it is relatively easy to transfer securities between the home country or primary trading market and the United States, a liquid trading market can develop quickly on the Exchange even if there are relatively few U.S. holders at the time of original listing. Brazil is an example of a country whose companies sometimes list on the Exchange without a concurrent U.S. initial public offering and where a liquid trading market quickly develops in the United States.
Currently, the only option for listing qualification available to a company from outside North America which is unable to comply with the U.S.-only distribution requirements of Section 102.01B
In addition to the difficulty many foreign listing applicants experience in meeting the distribution requirements under the Alternate Listing Standards, it has also been the Exchange's experience in recent years that many foreign companies that apply to list on the NYSE are able to meet the financial requirements to list under one or more of the domestic listing standards, but are not large enough to meet the market capitalization and financial requirements of the Alternate Listing Standards. The proposed amendments address this anomaly, as they would permit the listing of foreign companies which meet one of the domestic financial listing standards and which, while they would not meet any of the domestic distribution standards based solely on shareholders or trading volume in the United States, would be able to meet those requirements on the basis of their aggregate shareholder base and trading volume in both the United States and the company's home country market or primary trading market outside the United States, provided such market is a regulated stock exchange.
The Exchange notes that the Nasdaq Global Market requires applicants for initial listing to have 400 round lot holders, but do not specify that this requirement can only be met on the basis of holders in the United States.
Section 103.00 contains the following text:
Domestic listing requirements call for minimum distribution of a company's shares within the United States, or in the case of North American companies, within North America. This is a major obstacle for many large non-U.S. companies which otherwise fulfill many times over the normal size and earnings requirements for listing on the Exchange. The principal Alternate Listing Standards focus on worldwide rather than U.S. or North American distribution of a non-U.S. company's shares.
As the foregoing would no longer be accurate after adoption of the proposed amendments, the Exchange proposes to delete this text in its entirety.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
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 has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17—Equities by adding a new paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Archipelago Securities LLC (“Arca Securities”) to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account for Arca Securities. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of 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 Rule 17—Equities by adding a new paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Arca Securities to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account for Arca Securities.
From time to time, the Exchange also uses non-affiliate third-party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (
Arca Securities is the approved routing broker of the Exchange, subject to the conditions listed in Rule 17(c)—Equities. The Exchange relies on Arca Securities to provide outbound routing services from itself to routing destinations of Arca Securities (“routing destinations”).
A technical or systems issue may arise at Arca Securities, a routing destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or Arca Securities to take steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or Arca Securities determines that such action is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which the Exchange or Arca Securities may decide to cancel orders.
In some instances, the technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, a routing destination, the Exchange, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker may also result in Arca Securities acquiring an error position that it must resolve. The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which error positions may arise.
In the circumstances described above, Arca Securities may not learn about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the clearing process when a routing destination has submitted to DTCC a transaction for clearance and settlement for which Arca Securities never received an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not recognize a transaction submitted by Arca Securities to DTCC for clearance and settlement. Moreover, the affected member organizations' trade may not be nullified absent express authority under Exchange rules.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17—Equities to add new paragraph (c)(3) to address the cancellation of orders due to technical or systems issues and the use of an error account by Arca Securities.
Specifically, under paragraph (c)(3)(A) of the proposed rule, the Exchange or Arca Securities would be expressly authorized to cancel orders as may be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or systems issue occurred at the Exchange, Arca Securities, or a routing destination.
Paragraph (c)(3)(B) of the proposed rule would permit Arca Securities to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that result from a technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more orders (“error positions”). By definition, an error position would not include any position that results from an order submitted by a member organization to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and processed pursuant to Rule 132—Equities.
Under paragraph (c)(3)(C), in connection with a particular technical or systems issue, Arca Securities or the Exchange would be permitted to either (1) assign all resulting error positions to member organizations, or (2) have all resulting error positions liquidated, as described below. Any determination to assign or liquidate error positions, as well as any resulting assignments, would be required to be made in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Arca Securities or the Exchange would be required to assign all error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or systems issue if Arca Securities or the Exchange:
• Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information (including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all of the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or systems issue;
• Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal clearance and
• Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that technical or systems issue.
For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing destination to DTCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may be sufficient time to match positions with member organization orders and avoid using the error account.
There may be scenarios, however, where Arca Securities determines that it is unable to assign all error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected member organizations, or determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For example, in some cases, the volume of questionable executions and positions resulting from a technical or systems issue might be such that the research necessary to determine which member organization to assign those executions to could be expected to extend past the normal settlement cycle for such executions. Furthermore, if a routing destination experiences a technical or systems issue after Arca Securities has transmitted IOC orders to it that prevents Arca Securities from receiving responses to those orders, Arca Securities or the Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that issue. In such a situation, Arca Securities or the Exchange would not pass on to the member organizations any executions on the routed orders received from the routing destination.
The proposed rule also would require Arca Securities to liquidate error positions as soon as practicable.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(D), Arca Securities and the Exchange would be required to make and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions as error positions and all determinations for the assignment of error positions to member organizations or the liquidation of error positions, as well as records associated with the liquidation of error positions through the third-party broker-dealer.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
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.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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 ISE is proposing to amend maker fees for certain complex orders executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction fees and provides rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange (“maker/taker fees and rebates”) in a number of option classes (the “Select Symbols”).
For Select Symbols (including SPY) and Penny Pilot symbols, the Exchange currently charges a complex order maker fee of: (i) $0.10 per contract for Market Maker,
The Exchange now proposes to amend the maker fee for the group of symbols noted above when orders in these symbols trade against Priority Customer complex orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following maker fees for complex orders that trade against Priority Customer orders in the Select Symbols (excluding SPY):
• $0.37 per contract for Market Maker orders;
• $0.39 for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Professional Customer and Non-ISE Market Maker orders;
• $0.00 for Priority Customer orders.
For complex orders that trade against Priority Customer complex orders in SPY, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following maker fees:
• $0.38 per contract for Market Maker orders;
• $0.40 for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Professional Customer and Non-ISE Market Maker orders;
• $0.00 for Priority Customer orders.
For complex orders that trade against Priority Customer complex orders in Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following maker fees:
• $0.37 per contract for Market Maker orders;
• $0.39 for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Professional Customer and Non-ISE Market Maker orders;
• $0.00 for Priority Customer orders.
For orders that trade against Priority Customer complex orders in Non-Penny Pilot Symbols, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following complex order maker fees:
• $0.80 per contract for Market Maker orders;
• $0.83 for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Professional Customer and Non-ISE Market Maker orders;
• $0.00 for Priority Customer orders.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the maker fee for Non-ISE Market Maker orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols from $0.10 per contract to $0.20 per contract when trading against a non-Priority Customer. With this change, the Exchange seeks to standardize the maker fee for complex orders in Non-Penny Pilot Symbols with the fee currently charged for complex orders in Select Symbols and Penny Pilot Symbols for Non-ISE Market Maker orders when trading against a non-Priority Customer order.
Additionally, the Exchange provides Market Makers with a two cent discount when trading against Priority Customer orders that are preferenced to them. This discount is currently applicable when Market Makers remove liquidity in the Select Symbols, SPY, Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols and Non-Penny Pilot Symbols from the complex order book. The Exchange also currently provides Market Makers with a two-cent discount when they make liquidity in a select group of option classes (“Complex Quoting Symbols”).
The maker fees proposed herein are identical to the taker fees currently charged by the Exchange.
With this proposed rule change, the Exchange will be better positioned to maintain its attractive rebate structure for Priority Customer complex orders. The number of non-Priority Customer maker participants has continued to grown, separately and in addition to the growth in symbols where the Exchange allows complex quoting and has already implemented a fee structure where makers trading against Priority Customer orders pay the taker fee equivalent. This has resulted in an increased number of non-Priority Customer complex maker orders trading with Priority Customer Complex orders. Charging non-Priority Customer orders the equivalent of the taker fee when interacting with Priority Customer complex orders will allow the Exchange to support this model and continue to attract additional orders and liquidity to its Complex Orderbook.
Since the rate changes to the Schedule of Fees pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, for the transactions occurring in October 2012 prior to the effective date of this filing members will be assessed the rates in effect immediately prior to those proposed by this filing. For transactions occurring in October 2012 on and after the effective date of this filing, members will be
The Exchange's maker/taker fees and rebates for complex orders have proven to be an effective method of attracting order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change will also serve to enhance its competitive position and enable it to attract additional volume in these symbols.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge a maker fee of $0.37 per contract for Market Maker orders that trade against Priority Customer interest in the Select Symbols and Penny Pilot symbols and $0.39 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders that trade against Priority Customer interest in the Select Symbols and Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge a maker fee of $0.38 per contract for Market Maker orders that trade against Priority Customer interest in SPY and $0.40 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders that trade against Priority Customer interest in SPY. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge a maker fee of $0.80 per contract for Market Maker orders that trade against Priority Customer interest in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols and $0.83 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer orders that trade against Priority Customer interest in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols.
The Exchange notes that it already charges an identical maker and taker fee for Complex Quoting Symbols and is now simply extending that pricing model to complex orders in the Select Symbols, SPY, in the Non Select Penny Pilot Symbols and in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to charge the fees proposed herein as they are already applicable to complex orders in the Complex Quoting Symbols; with this proposed rule change, the Exchange is simply extending its current pricing model to complex orders in a larger group of option classes.
The complex order pricing employed by the Exchange has proven to be an effective pricing mechanism and attractive to Exchange participants and their customers. The Exchange believes that adopting distinct maker fees for orders that trade against Priority Customer orders in the Select Symbols, SPY, Non Select Penny Pilot Symbols and Non-Penny Pilot Symbols will attract additional business to the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees are consistent with price differentiation that exists today at other options exchanges. The Exchange believes it remains an attractive venue for market participants to trade complex orders despite its proposed fee change as its fees remain competitive with those charged by other exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. For the reasons noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 21, 2012, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
As set forth in the Notice, C2 has proposed to adopt a DPM program. The associated proposed rules are based on the rules governing the DPM program on the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), excluding certain provisions that are inapplicable to C2 (such as provisions related to floor trading and CBOE-specific provisions) and other provisions that the Exchange believes are outdated.
The proposed rule change defines a DPM as a Participant
Proposed Rule 8.15 sets forth the manner in which the Exchange will allocate securities to DPMs. Specifically, the Exchange will determine for each security traded on the Exchange whether the security should be allocated to a DPM and, if so, to which DPM. The proposed rule also describes the criteria that the Exchange may consider in making allocation determinations.
Proposed Rule 8.15 further provides that the Exchange may remove an allocation from a DPM and reallocate the security during a DPM's term if the DPM fails to adhere to any market performance commitments made by the DPM in connection with receiving the allocation or the Exchange concludes that doing so is in the best interests of the Exchange based on operational factors or efficiency. The proposed rule also describes the procedures the Exchange must follow prior to taking any action to remove an allocation.
Proposed Rule 8.16 grants the Exchange the authority to establish: (1) Restrictions applicable to all DPMs on the concentration of securities allocable to a single DPM and to affiliated DPMs, and (2) minimum eligibility standards applicable to all DPMs, which must be satisfied in order for a DPM to receive allocations of securities, including but not limited to standards relating to adequacy of capital and operational capacity.
Proposed Rule 8.17 describes the obligations of a DPM, including the general obligation that a DPM must fulfill all of the obligations of a Market-Maker under Exchange Rules. In addition, the rule sets forth additional requirements applicable to DPMs, such as heightened quoting obligations and a duty to make competitive markets on the Exchange. In particular, DPMs will be subject to a requirement to provide a continuous quote throughout each trading day in 99% of their non-adjusted series (or 100% minus one put-call pair of each assigned class). Proposed Rule 8.18 sets forth the specific financial requirements for DPMs.
Proposed Rule 8.19 grants a trade participation right to DPMs, and gives the Exchange authority to establish a participation entitlement formula that is applicable to all DPMs.
The Exchange proposed modifications to Rule 6.12 to accommodate the participation entitlement for DPMs. The proposed rule change provides that both PMMs and DPMs may be granted participation rights up to the applicable participation right percentage designated in Rule 8.13 and proposed Rule 8.19. Rule 6.12 also provides that, while the Exchange may activate more than one trade participation right for an option class (including at different priority sequences), in no case may more than one trade participation right be applied on the same trade. Further, the proposed rule provides that: (1) A DPM's order or quote must be at the best price on the Exchange; (2) a DPM may not be allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity that it is quoting (including orders not part of quotes) at that price; (3) in establishing the counterparties to a particular trade, the DPM's participation right must be first counted against its highest priority bids or offers; and (4) the DPM's participation right will only apply to any remaining balance of an order once all higher priorities are satisfied. The proposed rule change also adds paragraph (b)(2) to Rule 6.12 to provide for an optional small order priority overlay.
Proposed Rule 8.20 governs the Exchange's authority to terminate, condition, or otherwise limit the approval of a DPM. The proposed rule provides that the Exchange may take such action if the Participant incurs a material financial or operational change, or if it fails to comply with any of the requirements under C2 Chapter 8 regarding DPM obligations. The proposed rule also describes the procedures the Exchange must follow if it chooses to exercise its authority under the proposed rule.
Proposed Rule 8.21 provides that a DPM must maintain information barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business in option classes allocated to the DPM or act as a specialist or Market-Maker in any security underlying options allocated to the DPM, and otherwise comply with the requirements of CBOE incorporated Rule 4.18 regarding the misuse of material non-public information. The rule also requires a DPM to provide its information barriers to the Exchange and obtain prior written approval.
Finally, the Exchange is amending Rule 17.50(g)(14) to add DPM quoting obligations to the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan (“MRVP”).
The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rule change to adopt a DPM program on C2 is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed rules are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Pursuant to the proposed rules, the transactions of a DPM must constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. A DPM must fulfill all of the obligations of a Market-Maker under C2's rules, and must satisfy the additional requirements imposed on a DPM in the securities allocated to it. In particular, a DPM must, for example: (1) Provide continuous quotes in at least the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-adjusted option series minus one call-put pair of each option class allocated to it; (2) assure that each of its displayed market quotations are for the number of contracts required by Rule 8.6(a); (3) make competitive markets on the Exchange; (4) supervise all persons associated with the DPM to assure compliance with the C2 rules; (5) maintain minimum net capital in accordance with C2's rules; (6) maintain information barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the use of material, non-public information; and (7) continue to act as a DPM and to fulfill all of a DPMs obligations while approved as a DPM. If C2 finds any failure by a DPM to comply with the requirements of C2 Chapter 8 regarding DPM obligations and responsibilities, or if, for any reason, the Exchange believes that a Participant should no longer be eligible to act as a DPM or be allocated particular securities, then C2 may terminate, condition, or otherwise limit a Participant's approval to act as a DPM pursuant to Rule 8.20. Together, these provisions are designed to help assure that DPMs maintain and comply with their obligations to the Exchange and, in so doing, protect investors and the public interest by promoting fair and orderly trading on C2.
Under C2's proposed rules, DPMs would receive certain benefits for their heightened responsibilities. For example, proposed Rule 6.12 allows DPMs to be granted a participation entitlement pursuant to proposed Rule 8.19. A DPM may receive the participation entitlement only when it is one of the Participants quoting at the best price. Further, pursuant to Rule 8.19(b)(3), a DPM will not receive its participation entitlement in trades for which a Preferred Market-Maker receives a participation entitlement. In addition, pursuant to Rule 6.12(b)(2)(B), the small order preference only applies to the allocation of executions among non-customer orders and Market-Maker quotes existing in the Book (
The Commission believes that a DPM must have sufficient affirmative obligations to justify favorable
The Commission also finds that C2's proposed DPM qualification requirements are consistent with the Act. In particular, the Exchange's rules provide an objective process by which an applicant can become a DPM on the Exchange and are designed to provide for oversight by C2 to monitor for continued compliance by DPMs with the terms of their application for such status and the Exchange's rules. The proposed rules require that the Exchange consider several factors in determining whether to allow a Participant to act as a DPM, including the applicant's adequacy of capital, operational capacity, trading experience, regulatory history, and willingness and ability to promote the Exchange. These factors should ensure that those organizations approved to act as DPMs have the ability to supply liquidity, quote competitively, and perform their obligations competently.
The Exchange also may condition its approval for an applicant's DPM status, including by imposing conditions on the capital or operations of the applicant or the number of securities allocated to the applicant, which should contribute to the Exchange's ability to ensure that a DPM applicant is able to perform its DPM functions. The Commission believes that the financial requirements for DPMs proposed by the Exchange are designed to promote investor protection by ensuring that DPMs have sufficient capital to maintain an orderly market for their allocated securities.
Finally, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed procedures for allocating securities to DPMs should help to ensure that securities traded by the Exchange are allocated in an equitable manner, giving all DPMs a fair opportunity to obtain allocations. In addition, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rule limiting each DPM's term to one year should open opportunities to all Participants to become a DPM.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update the Contract Reference Obligation International Securities Identification Numbers (“Contract Reference Obligation ISINs”) in Schedule 502 of ICC's Rules in order to be consistent with the industry standard reference obligations for eight single name contracts that ICC currently clears (Beam Inc.; AT&T Inc.; Exelon Corporation; Avnet, Inc.; Cardinal Health, Inc.; The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; International Paper Company; and Metlife, Inc.).
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.
ICC is updating the Contract Reference Obligation ISINs in order to remain consistent with the industry standard reference obligations. The Contract Reference Obligation ISINs update does not require any changes to the body of the ICC Rules. Also, the Contract Reference Obligation ISINs update does not require any changes to the ICC risk management framework. The only change being submitted is the update to the Contract Reference Obligation ISINs in Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
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.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All 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-2012-19 and should be submitted on or before November 14, 2012.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 17 by adding a new paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Archipelago Securities LLC (“Arca Securities”) to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account for Arca Securities. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of 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 NYSE Rule 17 by adding a new paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Arca Securities to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account for Arca Securities.
From time to time, the Exchange also uses non-affiliate third-party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (
Arca Securities is the approved routing broker of the Exchange, subject to the conditions listed in NYSE Rule 17(c). The Exchange relies on Arca Securities to provide outbound routing services from itself to routing destinations of Arca Securities (“routing destinations”). When Arca Securities routes orders to a routing destination, it does so by sending a corresponding order in its own name to the routing destination. In the normal course, routed orders that are executed at routing destinations are submitted for clearance and settlement in the name of Arca Securities, and Arca Securities arranges for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the member organization that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange. However, from time to time, the Exchange and Arca Securities encounter situations in which it becomes necessary to cancel orders and resolve error positions.
A technical or systems issue may arise at Arca Securities, a routing destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or Arca Securities to take steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or Arca Securities determines that such action is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which the Exchange or Arca Securities may decide to cancel orders.
If Arca Securities or a routing destination experiences a technical or systems issue that results in Arca Securities not receiving responses to immediate or cancel (“IOC”) orders that it sent to the routing destination, and that issue is not resolved in a timely manner, Arca Securities or the Exchange would seek to cancel the routed orders affected by the issue.
If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the Exchange may take steps to cancel all outstanding orders affected by that issue and notify affected member organizations of the cancellations. In those cases, the Exchange would seek to cancel any routed orders related to the member organizations' initial orders.
In some instances, the technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, a routing destination, the Exchange, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker may also result in Arca Securities acquiring an error position that it must resolve. The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which error positions may arise.
Error positions may result from routed orders that the Exchange or Arca Securities attempts to cancel but that are executed before the routing destination receives the cancellation message or that are executed because the routing destination is unable to process the cancellation message. Using the situation described in Example 1 above, assume that the Exchange seeks to cancel orders routed to a routing destination because it is not receiving timely execution or cancellation reports from the routing destination. In such a situation, Arca Securities may still receive executions from the routing destination after connectivity is restored, which it would not then allocate to member organizations because of the earlier decision to cancel the affected routed orders. Instead, Arca Securities would post those positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the manner described below.
Error positions may result from an order processing issue at a routing destination. For instance, if a routing destination experienced a systems problem that affects its order processing, it may transmit back a message purporting to cancel a routed order, but then subsequently submit an execution of that same order (
Error positions may result if Arca Securities receives an execution report from a routing destination but does not receive clearing instructions for the execution from the routing destination. For instance, assume that a member organization sends the Exchange an order to buy 100 shares of ABC stock, which causes Arca Securities to send an order to a routing destination that is subsequently executed, cleared and closed out by that routing destination, and the execution is ultimately communicated back to that member organization. On the next trading day (T+1), if the routing destination does not provide clearing instructions for that execution, Arca Securities would still be responsible for settling that member organization's purchase, but would be left with a short position in its error account.
Error positions may result from a technical or systems issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of Arca Securities that are not related to Arca Securities' function as the Exchange's routing broker and are not related to any corresponding orders of member organizations. As a result, Arca Securities would not be able to assign any positions
In the circumstances described above, Arca Securities may not learn about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the clearing process when a routing destination has submitted to DTCC a transaction for clearance and settlement for which Arca Securities never received an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not recognize a transaction submitted by Arca Securities to DTCC for clearance and settlement. Moreover, the affected member organizations' trade may not be nullified absent express authority under Exchange rules.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 17 to add new paragraph (c)(3) to address the cancellation of orders due to technical or systems issues and the use of an error account by Arca Securities.
Specifically, under paragraph (c)(3)(A) of the proposed rule, the Exchange or Arca Securities would be expressly authorized to cancel orders as may be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or systems issue occurred at the Exchange, Arca Securities, or a routing destination.
Paragraph (c)(3)(B) of the proposed rule would permit Arca Securities to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that result from a technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more orders (“error positions”). By definition, an error position would not include any position that results from an order submitted by a member organization to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and processed pursuant to NYSE Rule 132.
Under paragraph (c)(3)(C), in connection with a particular technical or systems issue, Arca Securities or the Exchange would be permitted to either (1) assign all resulting error positions to member organizations, or (2) have all resulting error positions liquidated, as described below. Any determination to assign or liquidate error positions, as well as any resulting assignments, would be required to be made in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Arca Securities or the Exchange would be required to assign all error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or systems issue if Arca Securities or the Exchange:
• Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information (including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all of the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or systems issue;
• Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information necessary to assign the positions to all of the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or systems issue; and
• Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that technical or systems issue.
For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing destination to DTCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may be sufficient time to match positions with member organization orders and avoid using the error account.
There may be scenarios, however, where Arca Securities determines that it is unable to assign all error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected member organizations, or determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For example, in some cases, the volume of questionable executions and positions resulting from a technical or systems issue might be such that the research necessary to determine which member organization to assign those executions to could be expected to extend past the normal settlement cycle for such executions. Furthermore, if a routing destination experiences a technical or systems issue after Arca Securities has transmitted IOC orders to it that prevents Arca Securities from receiving responses to those orders, Arca Securities or the Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that issue. In such a situation, Arca Securities or the Exchange would not pass on to the member organizations any executions on the routed orders received from the routing destination.
The proposed rule also would require Arca Securities to liquidate error positions as soon as practicable.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(D), Arca Securities and the Exchange would be required to make and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions as error positions and all determinations for the assignment of error positions to member organizations or the liquidation of error positions, as well as records associated with the liquidation of error positions through the third-party broker-dealer.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
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.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 10.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA—4080—DR), dated 08/31/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 08/31/2012 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All Contiguous Counties have previously been declared.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 10/18/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13346 5 and for economic injury is 13347 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions to and extensions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than December 24, 2012. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Representative Payment Policies and Administrative Procedures for Imposing Penalties for False or Misleading Statements or Withholding of Information—0960-0740. This information collection request (ICR) comprises several regulation sections that provide additional safeguards for Social Security beneficiaries whose representative payees receive their payments. SSA requires representative payees to notify us of any event or change in circumstances that would affect receipt of benefits or performance of payee duties. SSA uses the information to determine continued eligibility for benefits, the amount of benefits due, and if the payee is suitable to continue serving as payee. The respondents are representative payees who receive and use benefits on behalf of Social Security beneficiaries.
2. Protecting the Public and Our Personnel To Ensure Operational Effectiveness (RIN 0960-AH35), Regulation 3729I—20 CFR 422.905, 422.906—0960-0796.
When members of the public demonstrate disruptive, violent, or threatening actions or behavior toward SSA employees, the agency takes measures to ensure the safety of everyone involved, including banning such individuals from appearing in person at any of our field offices. In lieu of in-person office visits, the agency provides services to banned individuals through alternate methods, including our 800 number, online applications, mail services, or, in limited circumstances, face-to-face services by appointment with additional security present.
On September 2, 2011, the agency published regulations and notifications processes for the ban decision at 76 FR 54700. The current ICR requests full approval for the public reporting burdens from the interim final rules. We previously obtained emergency OMB approval for these burdens.
The interim final ban decision rules contain two public reporting burdens:
• 20 CFR 422.905—after SSA issues a ban decision against an individual, the individual has 60 days to appeal the determination. Individuals must submit a written appeal stating why they believe SSA should rescind the ban and allow them to conduct business with us on a face-to-face basis in one of our offices. There is no printed form for this request; banned individuals create their own written statement of appeal, and submit it to a sole decision-maker in the regional office of the region where the ban originated. The individuals may also provide additional documentation to support their appeal.
• 20 CFR 422.906—three years after the original ban decision, banned individuals may re-submit a written appeal of the determination. The same criteria apply as for the original appeal: (1) It must be in writing;
(2) it must go to a sole decision-maker in the regional office of the region where the ban originated for review; and (3) it may accompany supporting documentation.
Respondents for this collection are individuals appealing their banning from SSA field offices.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 23, 2012. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1. Employment Relationship Questionnaire—20 CFR 404.1007—0960-0040. When SSA needs information to determine a worker's employment status for the purpose of maintaining a worker's earning records, the agency uses Form SSA-7160-F4 to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. We use the information to develop the employment relationship; specifically to determine whether a beneficiary is self-employed or an employee. The respondents are individuals seeking to establish their status as employees and their alleged employers.
2. Blood Donor Locator Service (BDLS)—20 CFR 401.200—0960-0501. The regulations on Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and Information, Subpart C, stipulate that when blood donor facilities identify blood donations as human immunodeficiency virus-positive, the overseeing state agency must provide the names and Social Security Numbers of the affected donors to SSA's Blood Donor Locator Service. SSA uses this information to furnish the state agencies with the blood donors' address information to notify the blood donors. Respondents are state agencies acting on behalf of blood donor facilities.
3. The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program—20 CFR 411—0960-0644. SSA's Ticket to Work (Ticket) Program transitions Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients toward independence by allowing them to receive Social Security payments while maintaining employment under the auspices of the program. SSA uses service providers, called Employment Networks (ENs), to supervise participant progress through the stages of Ticket Program participation, such as job searches and interviews, progress reviews, and changes in ticket status. ENs can be private for-profit and nonprofit organizations, as well as state vocational rehabilitation agencies (VRs). SSA and the ENs utilize the Ticket to Work Program Manager to operate the Ticket Program and exchange information about participants. For example, the ENs use the Program Manager to provide updates on tasks such as selecting a payment system or requesting payments for helping the beneficiary achieve certain work goals. Since the ENs are not PRA-exempt, the multiple information collections within the Ticket Program Manager require OMB approval, and we clear them under this ICR. Most of the categories of information in this ICR are necessary for SSA to: (1) Comply with the Ticket to Work legislation; and (2) provide proper oversight of the program. SSA collects this information through several modalities, including forms, electronic exchanges, and written documentation. The respondents are the ENs or state VRs, as well as SSDI beneficiaries and blind or disabled SSI recipients working under the auspices of the Ticket to Work Program.
This is a correction notice: SSA inadvertantly published incorrect burden information for this collection at 77 FR 47908, on 8/10/12. We are publishing correct burden data here.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions to OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than December 24, 2012. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Request for Reinstatement (Title II)—20 CFR 404.1592b—404.1592f—0960-0742. SSA allows certain previously entitled disability beneficiaries to request expedited reinstatement (EXR) of benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) when their medical condition no longer permits them to perform substantial gainful activity. SSA uses Form SSA-371 to obtain (1) a signed statement from individuals requesting an EXR of their title II disability benefits, and (2) proof the requestors meet the EXR requirements. SSA maintains the form in the disability folder of the applicant to demonstrate the requestors' awareness of the EXR requirements, and their choice to request EXR. Respondents are applicants for EXR of title II disability benefits.
2. Request for Reinstatement (Title XVI)—20 CFR 416.999-416.999d-0960-0744. SSA uses Form SSA-372 to (1) inform previously entitled beneficiaries of the EXR requirements of Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State proposes to amend an existing system of records, Personal Property Claims, State-27, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, Appendix I.
This system of records will be effective on December 3, 2012, unless we receive comments that will result in a contrary determination.
Any persons interested in commenting on the amended system of records may do so by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW.; Washington, DC 20522-8001.
Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW.; Washington, DC 20522-8001.
The Department of State proposes that the current system will retain the name “Personal Property Claims” (42 FR 49715). The system settles claims for loss, damage, or destruction of personal property. As part of the biennial review, we have updated all of the sections of the notice for the system to ensure Privacy Act of 1974 compliance.
The Department's report was filed with the Office of Management and Budget. The amended system description, “Personal Property Claims, State-27,” will read as set forth below.
Personal Property Claims.
Unclassified.
Department of State, SA-3, Suite 5100, 2121 Virginia Ave., Washington, DC 20037.
Employees of the Department of State and the Agency for International Development who have filed claims for loss of personal property.
Claims and determinations of claims which can include information such as names, birthdates, social security numbers (SSNs), employee IDs, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.
31 U.S.C. 3701
This information is used to settle claims for loss, damage, or destruction of personal property.
The information may be shared outside the Department of State with the Agency for International Development per the request of the individual making a claim employed by said agency.
This information may also be released to other government agencies having statutory or other lawful authority to maintain such information.
The Department of State periodically publishes in the
None.
Hard copy documents stored in physical files and electronic records stored in a database storage system.
Hard copy files are usually retrieved by individual name. Electronic records can be retrieved by search parameters such as claim number, claimant number, claim type, incident place, first name, and last name.
All users are given cyber security awareness training which covers the procedures for handling Sensitive but Unclassified information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Engaged Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly. Before being granted access to Personal Property Claims, a user must first be granted access to the Department of State computer system. Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only through a Department
All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation. Access to the Department of State, its annexes and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel only. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Records are retired and destroyed in accordance with published Department of State Records Disposition Schedules as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). More specific information may be obtained by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW.; Washington, DC 20522-8100.
Transportation and Travel Management Division (A/LM/OPS/TTM), Department of State, SA-3, Suite 5100, 2121 Virginia Ave., Washington, DC 20037.
Individuals who have cause to believe that the Office of Personal Property Claims might have records pertaining to him or her should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW.; Washington, DC 20522-8100. The individual must specify that he or she wishes the records of the Office of Personal Property Claims to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Name; date and place of birth; current mailing address and zip code; signature; and other information helpful in identifying the record.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or amend records pertaining to themselves should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services (address above.)
(See above).
The individual; personnel of the Department of State; insurance companies.
None.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State proposes to amend an existing system of records, Translator and Interpreter Records, State-37, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, Appendix I.
This system of records will be effective on December 3, 2012, unless we receive comments that will result in a contrary determination.
Any persons interested in commenting on the amended system of records may do so by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW.; Washington, DC 20522-8001.
Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW.; Washington, DC 20522-8001.
The Department of State proposes that the current system will retain the name “Translator and Interpreter Records” (42 FR 49719). The system will facilitate the procurement and effective performance of translators and interpreters who serve a vital function in accomplishing the Department's foreign policy mission. As part of the biennial review, we have updated all of the sections of the notice for the system to ensure Privacy Act of 1974 compliance.
The Department's report was filed with the Office of Management and Budget. The amended system description, “Translator and Interpreter Records, State-37,” will read as set forth below.
Translator and Interpreter Records.
Unclassified.
Department of State, 2401 E Street NW., SA-1, 14th Floor, Washington, DC 20522.
Individuals who have contracted with the Department of State to provide various translation and interpretation services.
The records are collected in the following groups: Biographical information, contractual information, and professional proficiency information. The biographical information includes but is not limited to: Name, social security number; date and place of birth, citizenship, visa information; contact information; education information; languages spoken; and data universal numbering system. The contractual information includes, but is not limited to: The Basic Ordering Agreement (contract or contract award) and work order. The professional proficiency information includes, but is not limited to: Test and interview results (both performance and evaluation) on language proficiency; and performance and evaluation records.
22 U.S.C. 3921 (Management of the Foreign Service), 22 U.S.C. 2651a (Organization of the Department of State).
To facilitate the procurement and effective performance of translators and interpreters who serve a vital function in accomplishing the Department's foreign policy mission.
Information contained in the Translator and Interpreter Records may be used by potential employers, credit institutions, rental offices etc., requesting verification of employment and/or earnings; and
To provide officials of other U.S. government agencies information needed in the performance of official duties in support of the function for which the records were collected and maintained.
The Department of State periodically publishes in the
None.
Hard copy and electronic.
By individual's name and social security number.
All users are given cyber security awareness training which covers the procedures for handling Sensitive but Unclassified information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Engaged Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly. Before being granted access to Translator and Interpreter Records, a user must first be granted access to Department of State computer system.
Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only through a Department-approved access program. Remote access to the network is configured in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-07-16 security requirements, which include but are not limited to two factor authentication and time-out function.
All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation. Access to the Department of State building and its annexes is controlled by security guards, and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Records are retired and destroyed in accordance with published records disposition schedules of the Department of State and as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). More specific information may be obtained by writing the Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, Department of State, SA-2, 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8001.
Director, Office of Language Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street NW., SA-1, 14th Floor, Washington, DC 20522.
Individuals who have cause to believe that Office of Language Services might have records pertaining to them should write to the Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, Department of State, SA-2, 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8001. The individual must request to have the Translator and Interpreter Records checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Name; date and place of birth; current mailing address and zip code; signature; a brief description of the circumstances, including the approximate dates on which the individual has cause to believe that the Office of Language Services might have records pertaining to him/her.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or amend records pertaining to them should write to the Director, Office of Information Programs and Services (address above.)
(See above.)
The individual; end-users of the contracted services; and various employees of the contracting office.
None.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of petition mootness.
Continental Tire North America, LLC.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Continental has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Continental's petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on November 29, 2010, in the
Contact Infromation: For further information on this decision, contact Mr. George Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5299, facsimile (202) 366-7002.
Summary of Continental's Petition: Affected are approximately 17,121 size 235/45ZR17 94W Continental brand Extremecontact DWS model passenger car tires manufactured from March 2009 to October 2009 at Continental's plant located in Camaçari-BA, Brasil. A total of approximately 16,245 of these tires have been delivered to Continental's customers in the United States.
Continental explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold labeling error, the sidewall marking on the reference side of the tires incorrectly identifies the tire size code as “658R 3VR” when in fact it should be identified as “658P 3VR” in the tread area of the tires as required by paragraph S5.5(b).
Continental also explains that while the noncompliant tires are mislabeled, all of the tires included in this petition meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139. Continental argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not create an unsafe condition and all other labeling requirements have been met.
Continental points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
Continental additionally states that it has corrected the affected tire molds and all future production will have the correct material shown on the sidewall.
In summation, Continental believes that the described noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, and should be granted.
NHTSA Decision:
Inconsequential noncompliance petitions filed under 49 CFR Part 556 only apply to situations where there is a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). In its petition, Continental stated that the tires in question have two different tire size codes, one on each sidewall. In discussions with NHTSA, subsequent to the notification of petition receipt, Continental explained that it has designated both of the size codes for this tire model to have the same meaning and that either the full TIN or the partial TIN uniquely identifies these tires. Based on this, NHTSA has determined that the alleged tire sidewall labeling noncompliance described in the subject petition is not a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 139 or any other applicable FMVSS. Therefore, this petition is moot and no further action on the petition is warranted.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Receipt of Petition.
Mazda North American Operations (MNAO),
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR Part 556), MNAO submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of MNAO's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions only apply to the subject 16,748
S4.5 Written instructions.
(a) Beginning on September 1, 2006, the owner's manual in each vehicle certified as complying with S4.5 must provide an image of the Low Tire Pressure Telltale symbol (and an image of the TPMS Malfunction Telltale warning (“TPMS”), if a dedicated telltale is utilized for this function) with the following statement in English:
Each tire, including the spare (if provided), should be checked monthly when cold and inflated to the inflation pressure recommended by the vehicle manufacturer on the vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a different size than the size indicated on the vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure label, you should determine the proper tire inflation pressure for those tires.)
As an added safety feature, your vehicle has been equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) that illuminates a
Summary of MNAO'S Analysis and Arguments:
MNAO believes that while the subject motor vehicles were delivered to customers in Puerto Rico with Owners Manuals that did not include the statement as required by paragraph S4.5(a) of FMVSS No. 138 in English, it is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
1. All affected owner's manuals contain accurate Spanish translations of the information.
2. In Puerto Rico, Spanish is the universally prevalent language. According to a U.S. Census done by the Census Bureau in 2010, 95.7% of Puerto Rico's population speaks Spanish as their primary language.
3. English Owners manuals for Mazda motor vehicles manufactured on or after 2002 can be downloaded from MNAO's Web site or upon request through MNAO dealerships and is available for customers in Puerto Rico free of charge.
4. MNAO has not received any complaints or claims in Puerto Rico with regards to the language of the Owner's manuals.
MNAO has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 138.
In summation, MNAO believes that the described noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before November 23, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before November 23, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before November 23, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before November 23, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden to the (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before November 23, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to the (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and Request for Comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Securities Exchange Act Disclosure Rules (12 CFR part 11) and Securities of Federal Savings Associations (12 CFR part 194).”
Comments must be received by December 24, 2012.
Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 2-3; Attention: 1557-0206, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874-5274, or by electronic mail to
Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0206, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725, 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
You can request additional information or a copy of the information collection from Mary H. Gottlieb or Johnny Vilela, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, the OCC invites comments on these topics:
(a) Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments should address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology as well as other relevant aspects of the information collection request.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is required by statute to collect, through regulation, from any firm that is required to register its stock with the SEC, certain information and documents. 15 U.S.C. 78m(a)(1). Federal law also requires the OCC to apply similar regulations to any national bank or Federal savings association similarly required to be registered (those with a class of equity securities held by 2,000 or more shareholders). 15 U.S.C. 78l(i).
12 CFR parts 11 and 194 ensure that a national bank or Federal savings association whose securities are subject to registration provides adequate information about its operations to current and potential shareholders, depositors, and to the public. The OCC reviews the information to ensure that it complies with Federal law and makes public all information required to be filed under these rules. Investors, depositors, and the public use the information to make informed investment decisions.
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 October 18, 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 October 18, 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. AL-HARBI, Adel Radi Saqr Al-Wahabi (a.k.a. ALHARBI, Adel Radhi Saqer; a.k.a. AL-HARBI, 'Adil Radi Saqr al-Wahbi; a.k.a. MUHARIB, Abu Ali; a.k.a. “MUHARIB”); DOB 01 Dec 1986; POB Buraydah, Saudi Arabia; nationality Saudi Arabia; Passport J110141 (Saudi Arabia) issued 18 Apr 2010 expires 22 Feb 2015; National ID No. 1059887057 (Saudi Arabia) (individual) [SDGT].
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will meet on November 14-16, 2012, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. On November 14-15, the sessions will be in room 430 from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. and on November 16 in room 730 from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority Veterans; to assess the needs of minority Veterans; and to evaluate whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On November 14, the Committee will receive briefings and updates from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Center for Minority Veterans, Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and a panel discussion with ex- officio members. On November 15, the Committee will receive briefings and updates on the National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Office of Health Equity, and a special panel discussion with Center for Women Veterans, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership, Office of Survivors Assistance, VA for Vets, and Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. On November 16, the Committee will hold an exit briefing with VBA, VHA and NCA. The Committee will receive public comments from 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. After public comment, the Committee will continue to work on their report.
A sign-in sheet for those who want to give comments will be available at the meeting. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public
By Direction of the Secretary:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to ION Geophysical (ION) to take, by harassment, small numbers of nine species of marine mammals incidental to in-ice marine seismic surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska, during the fall and winter of 2012.
Effective October 17, 2011, through December 15, 2012.
Requests for information on the incidental take authorization should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document, NMFS' Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the IHA may be obtained by writing to the address specified above or visiting the Internet at:
Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401 or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Region, (907) 271-3023.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
NMFS received an application on March 1, 2012, from ION for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a marine seismic survey in ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska, during October through December 15, 2012. After addressing comments from NMFS, ION modified its application and submitted a revised application on June 11, 2012.
ION's activities consist of a geophysical in-ice (seismic reflection/refraction) survey and related vessel operations to be conducted primarily in the Alaskan Beaufort and Chukchi seas from October to December 15, 2012. The primary survey area extends from the U.S.-Canadian border in the east to Point Barrow in the west. Two survey lines extend west of Point Barrow into the northern Chukchi Sea, and three short tracks are proposed near the U.S.-Russian border (see Figure 1 of ION's IHA application). The bathymetry of the proposed survey area ranges from shallow (<20 m [66 ft]) to relatively deep (>3,500 m [11,483 ft]) water over the continental shelf, the continental slope, and the abyssal plain.
The survey will be conducted from the seismic vessel
The survey vessels arrived in the survey area from Canadian waters in early October and plan to begin data collection on or after October 15, 2012. After completion of the survey, or when ice and weather conditions dictate, the vessels will exit to the south, transiting through the Chukchi and Bering Seas. The
ION's geophysical survey has been designed and scheduled to minimize potential effects to marine mammals, bowhead whales in particular, and subsistence users. For mitigation and operational reasons, the survey area has been bisected by a line that runs from 70.5° N. 150.5° W. to 73° N. 148° W. (see Figure 1 of ION's IHA application). Weather and ice permitting, ION plans to begin survey operations east of the line described above (eastern survey area) and in offshore waters (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]) where bowheads are expected to be least abundant in early October. This operational plan is based on the fact that only ~2% of bowhead whales observed by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) aerial surveys from 1979-2007 occurred in areas of water depth >1,000 m (3,281 ft) (MMS, 2010), and on average ~97% of bowheads have passed through the eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea by October 15 (Miller
Ice conditions are expected to range from open water to 10/10 ice cover. However, the survey cannot take place in thick multi-year ice as both the icebreaker and seismic vessel must make continuous forward progress at 3-4 kts. In order for the survey to proceed, areas of high ice concentration can only consist of mostly newly forming juvenile first year ice or young first year ice less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) thick. Sounds generated by the icebreaker and seismic vessel moving through these relatively light ice conditions are expected to be far below the high sound levels often attributed to icebreaking. These high sound levels (>200 dB re 1 μPa [rms]) have been recorded from icebreakers during backing and ramming operations in very heavy ice conditions and are created by cavitation of the propellers as the vessel is slowed by the ice or reverses direction (Erbe and Farmer, 1998; Roth and Schmidt, 2010).
The seismic source used during the project would be an airgun array consisting of 28 Sercel G-gun airguns, of which 26 would be active and have a total discharge volume of 4,450 in
Both vessels will operate industry standard echo sounder/fathometer instruments for continuous measurements of water depth while underway. These instruments are used by all large vessels to provide routine water depth information to the vessel crew. Navigation echo sounders send a single, narrowly focused, high frequency acoustic signal directly downward to the sea floor. The sound energy reflected off the sea floor returns to the vessel where it is detected by the instrument, and the depth is calculated and displayed to the user. Source levels of navigational echo sounders of this type are typically in the 180-200 dB re 1 μPA-m (Richardson
The
The
The proposed geophysical survey would be conducted for ~76 days from approximately October 15 to December 15, 2012. Both the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to ION was published in the
Any comments specific to ION's application that address the statutory and regulatory requirements or findings NMFS must make to issue an IHA are addressed in this section of the
As described here and in previous FR notices, PTS is considered to be injury (Level A Harassment). However, an animal would need to stay very close to the sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious degree of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In this case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold given the nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could potentially result from a mobile marine mammal that is generally expected to avoid loud sounds swimming in the vicinity of an airgun array moving at 3-4 knots. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue an incidental take authorization under 101(a)(5)(D), as we have made the necessary findings (described elsewhere in this document) under that Section of the MMPA.
As discussed in detail in the Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analysis and Determination section of this document, most of the takes from ION's proposed in-ice seismic surveys are expected to be Level B behavioral harassment, in the form of startle behavior or vacating the area for the short duration of time when the seismic airgun is firing in the area. Animals could also change their behavior patterns during this short duration, butare expected to resume their normal activities and reoccupy the area as soon as the vessels move away. Additionally, since the proposed icebreaking seismic survey is planned outside the time when ice seals are giving birth and after approximately 97% of the bowhead population is expected to have moved through the area, no impacts on pups or calves are expected, and nor are there any orther areas of particular importance for reproduction or feeding that could be impacted. Therefore, any behavioral effects to ringed seals, bowheads, or other species are not expected to have significant impacts to individual fitness or the population. In addition, the mitigation and monitoring measures (described previously in this document) included in the IHA are expected to further reduce any potential disturbance to marine mammals. Last, a small number of takes in the form of PTS are being authorized, however, if incurred, they would be expected to be minor in degree (low intensity—a few dBs of loss at certain frequencies), and they are not expected because of a combination of mitigation and likely avoidance of high source levels. Mortality is neither authorized nor anticipated.
Therefore, NMFS believes that the take, by harassment, from ION's in-ice seismic survey will have a negligible impacton the affected species or stocks.
In addition, cumulative effects were addressed in the Environmental Assessment and biological opinion prepared for this action, both of which NMFS indicated would be completed prior to the issuance of an IHA (77 FR 49922; August 17, 2012). The Environmental Assessment's cumulative effects analysis included consideration of (among other things): BP Exploration (Alasks), Inc.'s (BPXA) ocean-bottom-cable seismic surveys in the Simpson Lagoon area of the Beaufort Sea; BPXA's proposed Northstar oil production activity in the Beaufort Sea; and Shell Offshore Inc.'s (Shell) proposed exploratory drilling activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Arctic warming, subsistence hunting, and noise contribution from vessel traffic.
These documents, as well as the Alaska Marine Stock Assessments and the most recent abundance estimates for the affected species, are part of NMFS' Administrative Record for this action, and provided the decision maker with information regarding other activities in the action area that affect marine mammals, an analysis of cumulative impacts, and other information relevant to the determination made under the MMPA.
Regarding the environmental baseline, as described in the
Separately, regarding marine mammal responses to noise in general and as described in the
Finally, we acknowledge that bowhead and gray whales may remain in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the timeframe of ION's proposed survey. To account for this possibility, NMFS relied on summer/fall data to estimate potential abundance of these species, which resulted in an over-estimate of take.
If the percentage decrease were left unrounded the average density for water depths <200 m in the Eastern Beaufort Sea in Table 2 of the ION's IHA application would become 0.0132 bowheads/km
NMFS and ION by focused on bowhead whale aerial surveys that were conducted in the spring of 2011 and 2012. We ultimately agreed that the aerial survey data being used for density calculations was the most appropriate and that any newer data (
The determination regarding whether the total taking would have a negligible impact on the species or stocks is based on the species-specific average density, or based on allotted number from past chance occurrence, as described above and in the proposed
Regarding the requirement for ION to account for all sources of uncertainty in its estimation approach, including animals that may be present but not observed, NMFS believes that all population survey studies, as well as density estimates, take into account for marine mammals not observed during the survey.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, include PTS) are defined as increases in the threshold of audibility (
In addition, there are different degrees of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound (Clark 1981). Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both ears is commonly referred to as deafness (CDC 2004; WHO 2006). High-frequency PTS, presumably as a normal process of aging that occurs in humans and other terrestrial mammals, has also been demonstrated in captive cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder 1997; Yuen
In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A harassment) in marine mammals as a result of ION's in-ice seismic survey, if it occurs, NMFS has determined that the levels would be slight/mild because research shows that most cetaceans (and particularly Arctic cetaceans) show relatively high levels of avoidance when received sound pulse levels exceed 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (review in Richardson
In addition, NMFS provided more detailed analyses on noise-induced stress in its EA for the issuance of an IHA to ION (NMFS 2012), which also included three specific studies concerning marine mammals (Thomas
Nevertheless, NMFS recognizes that the TTS threshold of harbor porpoise is lower that other cetacean species (bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale) tested (
As far as the hearing sensitivity of mid-frequency cetaceans is concerned, it is well known that mid-frequency cetaceans have greater sensitivity to sounds within their best hearing ranges, which are typically between 10-100 kHz (Johnson 1967; Hall and Johnson 1972; White
The 10% correction factor used by NMFS is appropriate for estimating likely Level A Harassment takes, since there is evidence suggesting that most, if not all, marine mammals would avoid the noise levels that could cause immediate PTS (as described in the Estimated Take section below.
NMFS does not agree with the Commission's recommendation. Again, there is a difference between potential TTS (Level B Harassment), potential PTS (Level A Harassment) and serious injury. As described in detail in the response to Comment 13, the 180/190 dB re 1 μPa are the current standards used to prevent marine mammals from experiencing injury, which is equated with PTS, not TTS, which occurs at substantively lower received levels than PTS. In fact, all studies on marine mammal TTS have pointed out that TTS occurs at a received levels higher than NMFS current 180/190 dB re 1 μPa threshold (
Finally, even if the animal receives PTS, this does not equate to serious injury. As stated earlier in response to Comment 13, NMFS defines injury as “any injury that will likely result in mortality” (50 CFR 229.2), which, based on the best available science and NMFS' judgment, does not include PTS. .
To address these observations, it is important to understand that the vocal behaviors shown by fin and humpback whales, as reported by Clark and Gagnon (2006) and Risch
Based on the information and data summarized in Southall
Although it has been known that at long distances an impulse acoustic signal will lose its pulse feature by stretching its duration due to multipath propagation, these signals (or noises) are still fundamentally different from other non-impulse noise sources such as those from vibratory pile driving, drilling, and dredging based on the following characteristics:
First, the elongated pulse signals from the airgun array at far distances are caused by multipath propagation in a reverberant environment (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson
Second, even though during horizontal propagation, the initial short pulse could be “stretched” from milliseconds when emitted to about 0.25-0.5 second long at a few kilometers in shallow water (Richardson
Therefore, NMFS does not agree that it is appropriate to treat elongated airgun pulses at long distances as a “conventional” non-pulse signal and apply the 120 dB behavioral response threshold to that received sound.
Second, it is not true that the use of rms for calculating the levels of seismic impulse, or any other acoustic impulse, the pulsed sound “must be stretched”. The concern raised by Madsen (2005) was the perceived lack of a standardized window for calculating the rms levels during averaging. Citing a 2003
Nevertheless, NMFS requires ION to work with other oil and gas companies in the Arctic to deploy overwintering acoustic sensors to assess the impacts of its in-ice seismic survey and provide a baseline of the acoustic environment and marine mammal distribution during the winter season.
The analysis contained in the Final EIS will apply more broadly to multiple Arctic oil and gas operations over an extended period. NMFS' issuance of the IHA to ION for the taking of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting its in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 2012, as analyzed in the EA, is not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Additionally, the EA contained a full analysis of cumulative impacts.
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur in the seismic survey area include two cetacean species, beluga (
Three additional cetacean species and two pinniped species: Harbor porpoise (
The bowhead whale is listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and as depleted under the MMPA. Certain stocks or populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted seals are listed as endangered or proposed for listing under the ESA; however, none of those stocks or populations occur in the proposed activity area. The ESA-listed western North Pacific gray whale population occurs in the West Pacific, and the ESA-listed Cook Inlet beluga population resides in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The southern distinct population segment of spotted seal that is listed under the ESA is found in Liaodong Bay, China, and Peter the Great Bay, Russia. Additionally, the ribbon seal is considered a “species of concern”, meaning that NMFS has some concerns regarding status and threats to this species, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. Bearded and ringed seals are “candidate species” under the ESA, meaning they are currently being considered for listing.
ION's application contains information on the status, distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the species under NMFS' jurisdiction mentioned. Please refer to the application for that information (see
Operating active acoustic sources such as airgun arrays and icebreaking activities have the potential for adverse effects on marine mammals.
The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-auditory effects (Richardson
Icebreaking would be carried out for the ION's proposed in-ice seismic survey activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Acoustic source modeling and propagation of the icebreaker were provided in the Notice of Proposed IHA (77 FR 49922; August 17, 2012). The source levels of the icebreaker are much lower than those of the airguns. Although they are non-impulse sounds and are treated differently from airgun pulses when the Level B behavioral harassment is considered, the 120 dB re 1 µPa radii from icebreaking activities are still smaller than the 160 dB re 1 µPa radii. Therefore, the zone of influence from the airgun arrays essentially covers the area that would be ensonified by icebreaking activities during the survey, except for vessel transiting. The potential effects of icebreaking to marine mammals are discussed in the
The primary potential impacts to marine mammals and other marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by airguns and other active acoustic sources, noise generated from icebreaking, and breaking of ice during the seismic survey. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. Major potential anticipated effects on habitat from ION's proposed in-ice seismic survey include impacts on prey species (fish and other marine species that serve as marine mammal food) and physical environment (the destroy of ice layers) and are discussed in detail in the
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: “ * * * an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.”
Seismic surveys and associated icebreaking operations have the potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. In the case of cetaceans, the most common reaction to anthropogenic sounds (as noted previously in this document) is avoidance of the ensonified area. In the case of bowhead whales, this often means that the animals could divert from their normal migratory path by up to several kilometers. Additionally, general vessel presence in the vicinity of traditional hunting areas could negatively impact a hunt.
In the case of subsistence hunts for bowhead whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, there could be an adverse impact on the hunt if the whales were deflected seaward (further from shore) in traditional hunting areas. The impact would be that whaling crews would have to travel greater distances to intercept westward migrating whales, thereby creating a safety hazard for whaling crews and/or limiting chances of successfully striking and landing bowheads. Native knowledge indicates that bowhead whales become increasingly “skittish” in the presence of seismic noise. Whales are more wary around the hunters and tend to expose a much smaller portion of their back when surfacing (which makes harvesting more difficult). Additionally, natives report that bowheads exhibit angry behaviors in the presence of seismic, such as tail-slapping, which translate to danger for nearby subsistence harvesters.
However, due to its proposed time and location, ION's proposed in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would be unlikely to result in the aforementioned impacts. As discussed in detail in the
Finally, ION has signed a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), and prepared a Plan of Cooperation (POC) under 50 CFR 216.104 to address potential impacts on subsistence hunting activities. The CAA identifies those measures will be taken to minimize adverse impacts of the planned activities on subsistence harvesting. ION met with the AEWC and communities' Whaling Captains' Associations as part of the CAA development, and established avoidance guidelines and other mitigation measures to be followed where the activities may have an impact on subsistence.
Any incidental take authorization (ITA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, must prescribe where applicable, the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
For ION's in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, NMFS is requiring ION to implement the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity
The mitigation measures are divided into the following major groups: (1) Establishing exclusion and disturbance zones, (2) Vessel speed or course alteration, (3) Ramp up procedures (4) Power down procedures, and (5) Shutdown procedures. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect marine mammals within, or about to enter designated exclusion zones and to initiate immediate shutdown or power down of the airgun(s).
Under current NMFS guidelines, “exclusion zones” for marine mammals around industrial sound sources are customarily defined as the distances within which received sound levels are ≥180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and ≥190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds. These criteria are based on an assumption that sound energy at lower received levels will not injure these animals or impair their hearing abilities but that higher received levels might have some such effects. Disturbance or behavioral effects to marine mammals from underwater sound may occur after exposure to sound at distances greater than the exclusion zone (Richardson
Received sound levels were modeled for the full 26 airgun, 4,450 in
An acoustics contractor would perform the direct measurements of the received levels of underwater sound versus distance and direction from the energy source arrays using calibrated hydrophones (see below “Sound Source Verification” in the “Monitoring and Reporting Measures” section). The acoustic data would be analyzed as quickly and as reasonably practicable in the field and used to verify (and if necessary adjust) the size of the exclusion zones. The field report will be made available to NMFS and the Protected Species Observers (PSOs) within 120 hrs of completing the measurements. The mitigation measures to be implemented at the 190 and 180 dB (rms) sound levels would include power downs and shut downs as described below.
If a marine mammal (in water) is detected outside the exclusion zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the exclusion zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course shall be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect on the planned objectives when such a maneuver is safe.
Another measure proposes to avoid concentrations or groups of whales by all vessels in transit under the direction of ION. Operators of vessels should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum distance possible from such concentrations of whales.
All vessels during transit shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no physical contact with whales occurs. If any barge or transit vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed bowhead whales, the vessel operator shall take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
(A) Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards (900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
(B) Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
(C) Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
(D) Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and
(E) Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, adjust vessel speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to whales.
In the event that any aircraft (such as helicopters) are used to support the planned survey, the proposed mitigation measures below would apply:
(A) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, shall aircraft be operated at an altitude lower than 1,000 feet above sea level (ASL) when within 0.3 mile (0.5 km) of groups of whales.
(B) Helicopters shall not hover or circle above or within 0.3 mile (0.5 km) of groups of whales.
A ramp up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound levels and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total volume of airguns firing until the full volume is achieved. The purpose of a ramp up is to “warn” marine mammals in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities.
During the proposed seismic survey program, the seismic operator will ramp up the airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (
Ramp up procedures from a cold start shall be delayed if a marine mammal is sighted within the exclusion zone during the 30-minute period prior to the ramp up. The delay shall last until the marine mammal(s) has been observed to leave the exclusion zone or until the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15 or 30 minutes. The 15 minutes applies to small odontocetes and pinnipeds, while a 30 minute observation period applies to baleen whales and large toothed whales.
A ramp up, following a shutdown, can be initiated if the marine mammal(s) for which the shutdown occurred has been observed to leave the exclusion zone or until the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15 minutes (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (baleen whales and large toothed whales).
If, for any reason, electrical power to the airgun array has been discontinued for a period of 10 minutes or more, ramp-up procedures shall be implemented. Only if the PSO watch has been suspended, a 30-minute clearance of the exclusion zone is required prior to commencing ramp-up. Discontinuation of airgun activity for less than 10 minutes does not require a ramp-up.
The seismic operator and PSOs shall maintain records of the times when ramp-ups start and when the airgun arrays reach full power.
During turns and transit between seismic transects, the 70 in
A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radii of the 190 and 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) zones are decreased to the extent that observed marine mammals are not in the applicable exclusion zone. A power down may also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a power down, only one airgun is operated. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to (a) alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area, and (b) retain the option of initiating a ramp up to full array under poor visibility conditions. In contrast, a shutdown is when all airgun activity is suspended (see next section).
If a marine mammal is detected outside the exclusion zone but is likely to enter the exclusion zone, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid having the mammal enter the exclusion zone, the airguns may (as an alternative to a complete shutdown) be powered down before the mammal is within the exclusion zone. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the exclusion zone when first detected, the airguns will be powered down immediately if this is a reasonable alternative to a complete shutdown. During a power down of the array, the number of guns operating will be reduced to a single 70 in
Marine mammals hauled out on ice may enter the water when approached closely by a vessel. If a marine mammal on ice is detected by PSOs within the exclusion zones, it will be watched carefully in case it enters the water. In the event the animal does enter the water and is within an applicable exclusion zone of the airguns during seismic operations, a power down or shut-down will immediately be initiated. If the animal does not enter the water, it will not be exposed to sounds at received levels for which mitigation is required; therefore, no mitigation measures will be implemented.
Following a power down, operation of the full airgun array will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the exclusion zone if it:
• Is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone, or
• Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case of pinnipeds (excluding walruses) or small odontocetes, or
• Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case of mysticetes or large odontocetes.
The operating airgun(s) will be shut down completely if a marine mammal approaches or enters the then-applicable exclusion zone and a power down is not practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The operating airgun(s) will also be shut down completely if a marine mammal approaches or enters the estimated exclusion zone around the reduced source (one 70 in
Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the exclusion zone if it is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone, or if it has not been seen within the zone for 15 min (pinnipeds and small odontocetes) or 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes). Ramp up procedures will be followed during resumption of full seismic operations after a shutdown of the airgun array.
In addition, a single airgun (also referred to as the “mitigation gun” in past IHAs) shall not be kept firing for long periods of time during darkness or other periods of poor visibility when seismic surveys are not ongoing, with the exception of turns when starting a new trackline, or short transits or maintenance with a duration of less than one hour.
Finally, if a pinniped is sighted hauled out on ice within the underwater exclusion zone (received level 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms)), it will be watched carefully by the PSOs. Even though the pinniped may not be exposed to in-air noise levels that could be considered a take, the presence of the seismic vessel could prompt the animal to slip into the water, and thus be exposed to a high intensity sound field as a result. Therefore, the airgun should be powered down or shutdown immediately if thepinniped enters the water.
Since ION's proposed October—December in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is unlikely to result in adverse impacts to subsistence users due to its proposed time and location, no specific mitigation measures are proposed other than those general mitigation measures discussed above.
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes.
ION has signed a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) and communities' Whaling Captains' Associations for the proposed 2012 in-ice seismic survey. The main purpose of the CAA is to provide (1) equipment and procedures for communications between subsistence participants and industry participants; (2) avoidance guidelines and other mitigation measures to be followed by the industry participants working in or transiting in the vicinity of active subsistence hunters, in areas where subsistence hunters anticipate hunting, or in areas that are in sufficient proximity to areas expected to be used for subsistence hunting that the planned activities could potentially adversely affect the subsistence bowhead whale hunt through effects on bowhead whales; and (3) measures to be taken in the event of an emergency occurring during the term of the CAA.
The CAA states that all vessels (operated by ION) shall report to the appropriate Communication Center (Com-Center) at least once every six hours commencing with a call at approximately 06:00 hours. The appropriate Com-Center shall be notified if there is any significant change in plans, such as an unannounced start-up of operations or significant deviations from announced course, and such Com-Center shall notify all whalers of such changes.
The CAA further states that each Com-Center shall have an Inupiat operator (“Com-Center operator”) on duty 24 hours per day during the 2012 subsistence bowhead whale hunt.
In addition, ION has developed a “Plan of Cooperation” (POC) for the 2012 seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in consultation with representatives of Barrow, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Wainwright and subsistence users within these communities. NMFS received the final POC on August 13, 2012. The final POC is posted on NMFS Web site at
NMFS has carefully evaluated these mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS and proposed by the independent peer review panel, NMFS has determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Any ITA issued under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA is required to prescribe, where applicable, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) state that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals shall be performed by trained PSOs throughout the period of survey activities, supplemented by the officers on duty, to comply with expected provisions in the IHA. The observers shall monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near the survey vessels during all daylight periods. PSO duties include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey operations; and documenting “take by harassment” as defined by NMFS.
A sufficient number of PSOs shall be required onboard the survey vessel to meet the following criteria:
• 100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight;
• Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
• Maximum of ~12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
An experienced field crew leader shall supervise the PSO team onboard the survey vessels. ION's proposed survey will occur in October-December when the number of hours of daylight is significantly reduced, and thus will require fewer PSOs to be aboard the survey vessel than required for surveys conducted during the open water season with nearly 24 hrs of daylight. PSOs aboard the icebreaker operating 0.5-1 km (0.31-0.62 mi) ahead of the survey vessel will provide early detection of marine mammals along the survey track. Three PSOs will be stationed aboard the icebreaker
Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers shall be individuals with recent experience as observers during one or more seismic monitoring projects in Alaska, the Canadian Beaufort Sea, or other offshore areas.
Biologist-observers shall have previous marine mammal observation experience, and field crew leaders will be highly experienced with previous vessel-based marine mammal monitoring and mitigation projects. Résumés for all individuals shall be provided to NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers will be experienced in the region, familiar with the marine mammals of the area, and complete an approved observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. A PSO handbook, adapted for the specifics of the planned survey program, will be prepared and distributed beforehand to all PSOs.
Biologist-observers and Inupiat observers shall also complete a two or three-day training and refresher session together on marine mammal monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the anticipated start of the seismic survey. When possible, experienced observers shall be paired with inexperienced observers. The training session(s) shall be conducted by qualified marine
Primary objectives of the training include:
• Review of the marine mammal monitoring plan for this project, including any amendments specified by NMFS in the IHA;
• Review of marine mammal sighting, identification, and distance estimation methods using visual aids;
• Review of operation of specialized equipment (reticle binoculars, night vision devices (NVDs), and GPS system);
• Review of, and classroom practice with, data recording and data entry systems, including procedures for recording data on marine mammal sightings, monitoring operations, environmental conditions, and entry error control. These procedures will be implemented through use of a customized computer database and laptop computers;
• Review of the specific tasks of the Inupiat Communicator; and
• Exam to ensure all observers can correctly identify marine mammals and record sightings.
A PSOs' Handbook will be prepared for ION's monitoring program. Handbooks contain maps, illustrations, and photographs, as well as text, and are intended to provide guidance and reference information to trained individuals who will participate as PSOs. The following topics will be covered in the PSO Handbook for the ION project:
• Summary overview descriptions of the project, marine mammals and underwater noise, the marine mammal monitoring program (vessel-based, aerial, acoustic measurements), the NMFS' IHA (if issued) and other regulations/permits/agencies, the Marine Mammal Protection Act;
• Monitoring and mitigation objectives and procedures, initial exclusion zones;
• Responsibilities of staff and crew regarding the marine mammal monitoring plan;
• Instructions for ship crew regarding the marine mammal monitoring plan;
• Data recording procedures: codes and coding instructions, common coding mistakes, electronic database; navigational, marine physical, field data sheet;
• List of species that might be encountered: identification cues, natural history information;
• Use of specialized field equipment (reticle binoculars, NVDs, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system);
• Reticle binocular distance scale;
• Table of wind speed, Beaufort wind force, and sea state codes;
• Data storage and backup procedures;
• Safety precautions while onboard;
• Crew and/or personnel discord; conflict resolution among PSOs and crew;
• Drug and alcohol policy and testing;
• Scheduling of cruises and watches;
• Communication availability and procedures;
• List of field gear that will be provided;
• Suggested list of personal items to pack;
• Suggested literature, or literature cited; and
• Copies of the NMFS IHA and USFWS LOA.
The observer(s) will watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. The observer(s) will scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 × 50 reticle binoculars, supplemented during good visibility conditions with 20 × 60 image-stabilized Zeiss Binoculars or Fujinon 25 × 150 “Big-eye” binoculars, a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera, and night-vision equipment when needed (see below). Personnel on the bridge shall assist the marine mammal observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.
Information to be recorded by observers shall include the same types of information that were recorded during recent monitoring programs associated with Industry activity in the Arctic (
• Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if determinable), bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to activities (
• Additional details for any unidentified marine mammal or unknown observed;
• Time, location, speed, and activity of the vessel, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
• The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the observer location.
The ship's position, speed of the vessel, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, airgun status (ramp up, mitigation gun, or full array), and sun glare shall also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change in any of those variables.
Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with binoculars containing a reticle to measure the vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the water. However, previous experience has shown that a Class 1 eye-safe device was not able to measure distances to seals more than about 70 m (230 ft) away. The device was very useful in improving the distance estimation abilities of the observers at distances up to about 600 m (1,968 ft), the maximum range at which the device could measure distances to highly reflective objects such as other vessels. Humans observing objects of more-or-less known size via a standard observation protocol, in this case from a standard height above water, quickly become able to estimate distances within about ±20% when given immediate feedback about actual distances during training.
When a marine mammal is seen within the exclusion zone applicable to that species, the geophysical crew shall be notified immediately so that mitigation measures required by the IHA (if issued) can be implemented. It is expected that the airgun array will be shut down within several seconds, often before the next shot would be fired, and almost always before more than one additional shot is fired. The protected species observer shall then maintain a watch to determine when the mammal(s) appear to be outside the exclusion zone such that airgun operations can resume.
ION will provide or arrange for the following specialized field equipment for use by the onboard PSOs: 7 × 50 reticle binoculars, Big-eye binoculars or high power image-stabilized binoculars, GPS unit, laptop computers, night vision binoculars, digital still and possibly digital video cameras in addition to the above mentioned FLIR camera system (see below).
Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 binocular image intensifiers, or equivalent units) will be available for use when/if needed. Past experience with NVDs in the Beaufort Sea and elsewhere has indicated that NVDs are
Additional details regarding the monitoring protocol during NVD and FLIR system use has been developed in order to collect data in a standardized manner such that the effectiveness of the two devices can be analyzed and compared.
The infrared system is able to detect differences in the surface temperature of objects making it potentially useful during both daylight and darkness periods. NVDs, or light intensifiers, amplify low levels of ambient light from moonlight or sky glow light in order to provide an image to the user. Both technologies have the potential to improve monitoring and mitigation efforts in darkness. However, they remain relatively unproven in regards to their effectiveness under the conditions and it the manner of use planned for this survey. The protocols for FLIR and NVD use and data collection described below are intended to collect the necessary data in order to evaluate the ability of these technologies to aid in the detection of marine mammals from a vessel.
• All PSOs shall monitor for marine mammals according to the procedures outlined in the PSO handbook.
• One PSO shall be responsible for monitoring the FLIR system (IR-PSO) during most darkness and twilight periods. The on-duty IR-PSO shall monitor the IR display and alternate between the two search methods described below. If a second PSO is on watch, they shall scan the same area as the FLIR using the NVDs for comparison. The two PSOs shall coordinate what area is currently being scanned.
• The IR-PSO should rotate between the search methods (see below) every 30 minutes in the following routine:
The FLIR system consists of a camera that will be mounted on high point in front of the vessel. The camera is connected to a joystick control unit (JCU) and a display monitor that will be located on the bridge of the vessel. The IR-PSO shall manually control the view that is displayed by adjusting the pan (360° continuous pan) and tilt (+/−90° tilt) settings using the JCU. The FLIR manufacturer has indicated that they have tested the FLIR unit (model M626L) to −25 °C (−13 °F), but expect that it will operate at colder temperatures. During the time of the proposed seismic survey, the average minimum temperatures at Prudhoe Bay in October and November are +10 °F and −10 °F, respectively. Colder temperatures are certainly likely at times, but overall the temperatures should generally be within the operational range of the equipment.
As noted above, two different search methods shall be implemented for FLIR monitoring and results from the two will be compared. The first method involves a back-and-forth panning motion and the second utilizes the FLIR unit focused on a fixed swath ahead and to one side of the vessel track:
Method I: Set the horizontal tilt of the camera to an angle that provides an adequate view out in front of the vessel and also provides good resolution to potential targets (this will likely mean that the lower portion of the view displayed on the monitor is of an area relatively close to the vessel (<100 m [328 ft]) while the middle and upper portions of the view are at greater distances (500-2,000 m [1,640-6,562 ft]). Pan back and forth across the forward 180° of the vessels heading at a slow-scanning rate of approximately 1-2°/sec, as one would with binoculars. This method is intended to replicate the type of observations conducted using binoculars and cover a relatively wider swatch compared to Method II. It should produce sightings data that can be analyzed using line-transect methodologies to estimate marine mammal densities in the survey area.
Method II: Set the horizontal tilt of the camera to an angle that provides an adequate view out in front of the vessel (similar or identical to the above), and then set the camera at a fixed position that creates a swath of view off the bow and to one side of the vessel (see Figure 1 of ION's monitoring plan). This method essentially establishes a fixed-strip width that is intended to produce sightings data that can be analyzed using strip-transect methodologies to estimate marine mammal densities.
The NVDs are goggles worn by the observer and are to be used in a similar fashion as binoculars. When observing in conjunction with the FLIR system, the objective will be to replicate the monitoring methodology being employed by the FLIR system. Method I requires a full 180° scan (or as large of a range as possible from the observer's location) with the NVDs, and Method II requires a focused scan of the ~60° swath being monitored by the FLIR system.
The observers shall record their observations onto datasheets or directly into handheld computers. During periods between watches and periods when operations are suspended, those data shall be entered into a laptop computer running a custom computer database. The accuracy of the data entry shall be verified in the field by computerized validity checks as the data are entered, and by subsequent manual checking of the database printouts. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field season, and shall facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical or other programs for further processing. Quality control of the data will be facilitated by (1) the start-of-season training session, (2) subsequent supervision by the onboard field crew leader, and (3) ongoing data checks during the field season.
The data shall be backed up regularly onto CDs and/or USB disks, and stored at separate locations on the vessel. If possible, data sheets will be photocopied daily during the field season. Data shall be secured further by having data sheets and backup data CDs carried back to the Anchorage office during crew rotations.
In addition to routine PSO duties, observers shall use Traditional Knowledge and Natural History datasheets to record observations that are not captured by the sighting or effort data. Copies of these records will be available to observers for reference if they wish to prepare a statement about their observations. If prepared, this statement would be included in the 90-day and final reports documenting the monitoring work.
Observation effort data shall be designed to capture the amount of PSO effort itself, environmental conditions
• Observation Method: FLIR, NVD, spotlight, eye (naked eye or regular binoculars), or multiple methods. This data is collected every 30 minutes with the Observer Effort form and with every sighting.
• Cloud Cover: Percentage. This can impact lighting conditions and reflectivity.
• Precipitation Type: Fog, rain, snow, or none.
• Precipitation Reduced Visibility: Confirms whether or not visibility is reduced due to precipitation. This will be compared to the visibility distance (# km) to determine when visibility is reduced due to lighting conditions versus precipitation.
• Daylight Amount: Daylight, twilight, dark. The addition of the twilight field has been included to record observation periods where the sun has set and observation distances may be reduced due to lack of light.
• Light Intensity: Recorded in footcandles (fc) using an incident light meter. This procedure was added to quantify the available light during twilight and darkness periods and may allow for light-intensity bins to be used during analysis.
Analysis of the sightings data shall include comparisons of nighttime (FLIR and NVD) sighting rates to daylight sighting rates. FLIR and NVD analysis will be independent of each other and according to method (I or II) used. Comparison of NVD and FLIR sighting rates will allow for a comparison of marine mammal detection ability of the two methods. However, results and analyses could be limited if relatively few sightings are recorded during the survey.
As described above, received sound levels were modeled for the full 26 airgun, 4,450 in
The objectives of the sound source measurements planned for 2012 in the Beaufort Sea will be (1) to measure the distances in potentially ice covered waters in the broadside and endfire directions at which broadband received levels reach 190, 180, 170, 160, and 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for the energy source array combinations that may be used during the survey activities, and (2) measure the sounds produced by the icebreaker and seismic vessel as they travel through sea ice. Conducting the sound source and vessel measurements in ice-covered waters using bottom founded recorders creates a risk of not being able to retrieve the recorders and analyze the data until the following year. If the acoustic recorders are not deployed or are unable to be recovered because of too much sea ice, ION shall use measurements of the same airgun source taken in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2010, along with sound velocity measurements taken in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea at the start of the 2012 survey to update the propagation model and estimate new exclusion zones. These modeled results shall then be used for mitigation purposes during the remainder of the survey.
The airgun configurations measured shall include at least the full 26 airgun array and the single 70 in
Data shall be previewed in the field immediately after download from the hydrophone instruments. An initial sound source analysis shall be supplied to NMFS and the airgun operators within 120 hours of completion of the measurements. The report shall indicate the distances to sound levels based on fits of empirical transmission loss formulae to data in the endfire and broadside directions. A more detailed report will be issued to NMFS as part of the 90-day report following completion of the acoustic program.
Although some measurements of icebreaking sounds have previously been reported, acoustic data on vessels traveling through relatively light ice conditions, as will be the case during the proposed survey, are not available. In order to gather additional information on the sounds produced by this type of icebreaking, ION proposes to use the hydrophones in the seismic streamer on a routine basis throughout the survey. Once every hour the airguns would not be fired at 2 consecutive intervals (one seismic pulse interval is typically ~18 seconds, so there will be ~54 seconds between seismic pulses at this time) and instead a period of background sounds would be recorded, including the sounds generated by the vessels. Over the course of the survey this should generate as many as 750 records of vessel sounds traveling through various ice conditions (from open water to 100% cover juvenile first year ice or lighter multi-year ice). The acoustic data during each sampling period from each hydrophone along the 9 km (5.6 mi) streamer would be analyzed and used to estimate the propagation loss of the vessel sounds. The acoustic data received from the hydrophone streamer would be recorded at an effective bandwidth of 0-400 Hz. In order to estimate sound energy over a larger range of frequencies (broadband), results from previous measurements of icebreakers could be generalized and added to the data collected during this project.
In order to collect additional data on the propagation of sounds produced by icebreaking and seismic airguns in ice-covered waters, as well as on vocalizing marine mammals, ION intends to collaborate with other Industry operators to deploy acoustic recorders in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in fall 2012, to be retrieved during the 2013 open-water season.
During winter 2011-2012, AURAL acoustic recorders were deployed at or near each of the 5 acoustic array sites
• Characterize the sounds and propagation distances produced by ION's source vessel, icebreaker, and airguns on and to the edge of the U.S. Beaufort Sea shelf,
• Characterize ambient sounds and marine mammal calls during October and November to assess the relative effect of ION's seismic survey on the background conditions, and to characterize marine mammal calling behavior, and
• Characterize ambient sound and enumerate marine mammal calls through acoustic sampling of the environment form December 2012 through July 2013, when little or no anthropogenic sounds are expected.
The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer reviewed “where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing regulations state, “Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan” (50 CFR 216.108(d)).
NMFS convened independent peer review panels to review ION's mitigation and monitoring plan in its IHA applications submitted in 2010 and 2011 for taking marine mammals incidental to the proposed seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, during 2010 and 2011. The panels met on March 25 and 26, 2010, and on March 9, 2011, and provided their final report to NMFS on April 22, 2010 and on April 27, 2011, respectively. The full panel reports can be viewed at:
ION's proposed 2012 action is essentially the same as described in its 2010 and 2011 IHA applications. NMFS worked with ION in 2010 and 2011 to address the peer review panels' recommendations on its 2010 and 2011 4MPs. Since ION's 2012 4MP addressed all issues raised during the 2010 and 2011 peer reviews and incorporated all of NMFS' requested changes, NMFS decided it was not necessary to conduct a peer-review of ION's 2012 4MP. All actions based on the 2010 and 2011 panel review are discussed in the
A report on the preliminary results of the acoustic verification measurements, including as a minimum the measured 190-, 180-, 160-, and 120-dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii of the airgun arrays shall be submitted within 120 hr after collection and analysis of those measurements at the start of the field season. This report shall specify the distances of the exclusion zones that were adopted for the marine survey activities.
Throughout the survey program, the observers shall prepare a report each day or at such other intervals as the IHA may specify (if issued), or ION may require summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. The field reports shall summarize the species and numbers of marine mammals sighted. These reports shall be provided to NMFS and to the survey operators.
The results of the vessel-based monitoring, including estimates of “take by harassment”, shall be presented in the 90-day and final technical reports. Reporting shall address the requirements established by NMFS in the IHA. The technical report shall include:
(a) Summaries of monitoring effort: total hours, total distances, and distribution of marine mammals through the study period accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
(b) Methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all acoustic characterization work and vessel-based monitoring;
(c) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals including sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare;
(d) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories, group sizes, and ice cover; and
(e) Analyses of the effects of survey operations:
• Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect detectability);
• Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
• Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
• Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun activity state;
• Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun activity state;
• Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun activity state; and
• Estimates of “take by harassment”.
In addition to the reporting measures proposed by ION, NMFS will require that ION notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' Stranding Network of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the vicinity of marine survey operations. Depending on the circumstance of the incident, ION shall take one of the following reporting protocols when an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered in the vicinity of the action area.
(a) In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an injury, serious injury or mortality (
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
(iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(iv) Description of the incident;
(v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(vi) Water depth;
(vii) Environmental conditions (
(viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(x) The fate of the animal(s); and
(xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ION to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ION may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that ION discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(c) In the event that ION discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (if issued) (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here (military readiness activities), the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. For the most part, only take by Level B behavioral harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed marine seismic survey. However, NMFS has determined that Level A takes of a few individuals of marine mammals could occur if the animals are unable to bedetected within the exclusion zones for a prolonged period of time. Although NMFS believes this is not likely, NMFS is proposing to authorize limited takes from Level A harassment. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with noise propagation from the seismic airgun(s) and the icebreaking used during the seismic survey.
The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals was described in detail in the “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals” section found earlier in this document. The potential effects of sound from the proposed marine survey programs might include one or more of the following: tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson
NMFS uses the 160 dB and 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleths to indicate the onset of Level B harassment by seismic airgun impulses and by icebreaking noises, respectively. ION provided calculations for the 160-dB and 120-dB isopleths produced by these active acoustic sources and then used those isopleths to estimate takes by harassment. NMFS used the calculations to make preliminary findings under the MMPA. ION provided a full description of the methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in its IHA application (see
ION has requested an authorization to take ten marine mammal species by Level B harassment. These ten marine mammal species are: beluga whale, harbor porpoise, bowhead whale, gray whale, humpback whale, minke whale, bearded seal, ringed seal, spotted seal, and ribbon seal. However, NMFS does not anticipate that humpback whales are likely to be encountered during the season of ION's icebreaking seismic survey. Therefore, NMFS determined that only nine of the species could be affected and potentially taken by harassment. In addition, although unlikely, NMFS determined that Level A takes of beluga whales, bowhead whales, and ringed seals could also occur, as the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures may not be 100% effective due to ice coverage and extended periods of darkness. Regardless, our analysis has led us to conclude that marine mammals will likely avoid the sound source thereby minimizing the probability of exposure at a level that would equate to Level A harassment.
As stated previously, it is current NMFS practice to estimate take by Level A harassment for received levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds, and take by Level B harassment for all marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction by impulse sounds at a received level above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and by non-impulse sounds at a received level above 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms). However, not all animals are equally affected by the same received noise levels and, as described earlier, in most cases marine mammals are not likely to be taken by Level A harassment (injury) when exposed to received levels higher than 180 dB for a brief period of time.
For behavioral harassment, marine mammals will likely not show strong reactions (and in some cases any reaction) until sounds are much stronger than 160 or 120 dB (for impulse and continuous sounds, respectively). Southall
Anticipated takes would include “takes by harassment” involving temporary changes in behavior (Level B harassment) and TTS (Level B harassment). NMFS does not consider injury (Level A harassment) to be likely, however, due to the limited
Although several systematic surveys of marine mammals have been conducted in the southern Beaufort Sea during spring and summer, few data (systematic or otherwise) are available on the distribution and numbers of marine mammals during the early winter period of this survey, particularly in the northern Beaufort Sea. The main sources of distributional and numerical data used in deriving the estimates are described in the next subsection. There is some uncertainty about how representative those data are and the assumptions used below to estimate the potential “take by harassment”. However, the approach used here is accepted by NMFS as the best available at this time. That is, we calculated the estimated take by multiplying the ensonified area by the density of marine mammals. The following estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be disturbed appreciably by ~7,250 line kilometers (4,505 line miles) of seismic surveys across the Beaufort Sea and, to a lesser extent, the northern Chukchi Sea.
This section describes the estimated densities of marine mammals that may occur in the survey area. The area of water that may be ensonified to various levels is described below. Although a marine mammal may be exposed to icebreaking sounds ≥120 dB (rms) or airgun sounds ≥160 dB (rms), this does not mean that every individual exposed at these levels will
The survey has been designed to minimize interactions with marine mammals by planning to conduct the work at times and in areas where the relative density of marine mammals is expected to be quite low. The survey will begin in offshore waters (>1,000 m [3,281 ft] deep) of the eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea (east survey area) in mid-October. Weather and ice permitting, the waters <1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep will not be surveyed until mid-October and thereafter, in order to avoid migrating bowhead whales. The western U.S. Beaufort Sea and north-eastern Chukchi Sea (west survey area) is not expected to be surveyed until late October through December.
Separate densities were calculated for habitats specific to cetaceans and pinnipeds. For cetaceans, densities were estimated for areas of water depth <200 m (656 ft), 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft), and >1,000 m (3,281 ft), which approximately correspond to the continental shelf, the continental slope, and the abyssal plain, respectively. Separate densities of both cetacean and pinnipeds were also estimated for the east and west survey areas within each water depth category. However, pinniped densities in the west survey area and <200 m (656 ft) water depth category were further sub-divided into <35 m (115 ft) and 35-200 m (115-656 ft) depth categories. This was done because the west survey area is not expected to be surveyed until November-December, and based on historic sea ice data (NOAA National Ice Center, available online at
Detectability bias, quantified in part by f(0), is associated with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the survey trackline. Availability bias, g(0), refers to the fact that there is <100% probability of sighting an animal that is present along the survey trackline. Some sources used below took account of one or both of these correction factors in reporting densities. When these factors had not been accounted for, the best available correction factors from similar studies and/or species were applied to reported results. Details regarding the application of correction factors are provided below for each species.
Beluga density estimates for the west survey area, which is planned to be surveyed beginning in November, represent the east survey area estimates multiplied by 0.1 because the Beaufort Sea and north-eastern Chukchi Sea is believed to be at the edge of the species' range in November-December. Belugas typically migrate into the Bering Sea for the winter (Allen and Angliss, 2011) and are not expected to be present in the study area in high numbers in November-December. Satellite tagging data support this and indicate belugas migrate out of the Beaufort Sea in the October-November period (Suydam
Because bowhead whale density is typically higher in continental shelf waters of the Beaufort Sea in early October, the survey has been planned to start in the eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea in waters deeper than 1,000 m (3,281 ft; ice conditions permitting), where bowhead density is expected to be much lower. Survey activity in shallower waters will proceed from east to west starting later in October as bowhead whales migrate west out of the Beaufort Sea. The nearshore lines in the east survey area will be surveyed during late October. Bowhead density in the east survey area in waters <200 m (656 ft) deep was estimated by taking ten percent of the reference density above (Table 2 in this document). This adjustment was based on data from Miller
Bowhead whale densities in intermediate (200-1,000 m [656-3,281 ft]) and deep (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]) water depths in the east survey area are expected to be quite low. Ninety-seven percent of sightings recorded by MMS aerial surveys 1997-2004 occurred in areas of water depth <200 m (656 ft) (Treacy, 1998, 2000, 2002a, 2000b; Monnett and Treacy, 2005). Therefore, density estimates for areas of water depth 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) were estimated to be ~3% of the values for areas with depth <200 m (656 ft). This is further supported by Mate
Several sources were used to estimate bowhead whale density in the west survey area, including the north-eastern Chukchi Sea, which is expected to be surveyed beginning in late October or early November. Mate
In polar regions, most pinnipeds are associated with sea ice, and typical census methods involve counting pinnipeds when they are hauled out on ice. In the Beaufort Sea, surveys typically occur in spring when ringed seals emerge from their lairs (Frost
Habitat zones and associated densities were defined differently in the west survey area, which will be surveyed in November-December, because more ice is expected to be encountered at that time than in October (NOAA National Ice Center:
In the Chukchi Sea, ringed seal densities were taken from offshore aerial surveys of the pack ice zone conducted in spring 1999 and 2000 (Bengtson
Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially taken are estimated below based on available data about mammal distribution and densities at different locations and times of the year as described above.
The number of individuals of each species potentially exposed to received levels ≥120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), depending on the type of activity occurring, within each portion of the survey area (east and west) and water depth category was estimated by multiplying:
• The anticipated area to be ensonified to ≥120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in each portion of the survey area (east and west) and water depth category, by
• The expected species density in that time and location.
Some of the animals estimated to be exposed, particularly migrating bowhead whales, might show avoidance reactions before being exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Thus, these calculations actually estimate the number of individuals potentially exposed to ≥160 dB (rms) that would occur if there were no avoidance of the area ensonified to that level.
The area of water potentially exposed to received levels of airgun sounds ≥160 dB (rms) was calculated by using a GIS to buffer the planned survey tracklines within each water depth category by the associated modeled ≥160 dB (rms) distances. The expected sound propagation from the airgun array was modeled by JASCO Applied Research (Zykov
Based on the operational plans and marine mammal densities described above, the estimates of marine mammals potentially exposed to sounds ≥160 dB (rms) are presented in Table 5 in this document. For species likely to be present, the requested numbers are calculated as described above. For less common species, estimates were set to minimal numbers to allow for chance encounters. Discussion of the number of potential exposures is summarized by species in the following subsections.
It is likely that some members of one endangered cetacean species (bowhead whale) will be exposed to received
The ringed seal is the most widespread and abundant pinniped species in ice-covered Arctic waters, and there is a great deal of variation in estimates of population size and distribution of these marine mammals. Ringed seals account for the vast majority of marine mammals expected to be encountered, and hence exposed to airgun sounds with received levels >160 dB (rms) during the proposed marine survey. Our analysis, based on our use of summer/fall density data, resulted in an overestimation of take of ringed seals (approximately 60,293 ringed seals may be exposed to marine survey sounds with received levels >160 dB (rms)) if they do not avoid the sound source. Other pinniped species are not expected to be present in the proposed survey area in more than minimal numbers in October-December; however, ION is requesting authorization for a small number of harassment “takes” of species that occur in the area during the summer months in case a few individuals are encountered (Table 5 in this document).
It should be noted that there is no evidence that most seals exposed to airgun pulses with received levels 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are disturbed appreciably, and even at a received level of 180 dB (rms) disturbance is not conspicuous (Harris
As discussed above, based on available information regarding sounds produced by icebreaking in various ice regimes and the expected ice conditions during the proposed survey, vessel sounds generated during ice breaking are likely to have source levels between 175 and 185 dB re 1 µPa-m. As described above, we have assumed that seismic survey activity will occur along all of the planned tracklines shown in Figure 1 of ION's IHA application. Therefore, received levels ≥160 dB radius of 26.7-42.2 km (16.6-26.2 mi; depending on water depth) to each side of all of the survey lines was applied for the calculation. Assuming a source level of 185 dB re 1 µPa-m and using the 15logR for calculating spreading loss of acoustic intensity, icebreaking sounds may be ≥120 dB out to a maximum distance of ~21.6 km (13.4 mi). Thus, all sounds produced by icebreaking are expected to diminish below 120 dB re 1 μPa within the zone where we assume mammals will be exposed to ≥160 dB (rms) from seismic sounds. Exposures of marine mammals to icebreaking sounds with received levels ≥120 dB would effectively duplicate or “double-count” animals already included in the estimates of exposure to strong (≥160 dB) airgun sounds. The planned survey lines cover a large extent of the U.S. Beaufort Sea, and seismic survey activity along all those lines has been assumed in the estimation of takes. Any non-seismic periods, when only icebreaking might occur, would therefore result in fewer exposures than estimated from seismic activities.
If refueling of the
If the
In the past, because of the likelihood that that individuals will avoid exposure at received levels and lengths of time associated with PTS, and because of the anticipated effectiveness of mitigation in the daytime and in open water, applicants have not requested authorization for Level A harassment of marine mammals. However, as noted previously, due to the more limited effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures for animals under ice cover and during long lowlight hours, but still considering the likelihood that most individuals will avoid exposure at higher levels and the lower densities of some species, NMFS is proposing to authorize takes of a small number of marine mammals by PTS (Level A harassment or injury) when exposed to received noise levels above 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for prolonged period, although this is unlikely to occur.
The methods used below for estimating the number of individuals potentially exposed to sounds >180 or >190 dB re 1 µPa (rms), which are based on over-estimated densities and do not consider avoidance or mitigation are therefore corrected to account for avoidance and mitigation to estimate a more reasonable number that could incur PTS (Level A take) although, for reasons described here and further below, NMFS does not anticipate that marine mammals will be injured or harmed by the proposed project.
Only two cetacean species, beluga and bowhead, may be present in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea late in the survey period or where extensive ice cover is present. Gray whale vocalizations have been recorded throughout one winter (2003-2004) in the western Alaskan Beaufort Sea near Pt. Barrow (Moore
Beluga whales have shown avoidance of icebreaking sounds at relatively low
Aerial and vessel based monitoring of seismic surveys in the central Beaufort Sea showed significant avoidance of active airguns by belugas. Results of the aerial monitoring suggested an area of avoidance out to 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) around an active seismic source with higher than expected sighting rates observed at distances 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) from the source (Miller
Based on the reported avoidance of vessel, icebreaking, and seismic sounds by beluga whales, and the low and seasonally decreasing density during the time of the proposed survey, the likelihood of beluga whales occurring within the ≥180 dB zone during the proposed project is extremely low. A cautionary estimate that assumes 10% of belugas will show no avoidance of the 180 dB zone results in an estimate of 23 beluga whales exposed to sounds ≥180 dB (based on the densities described above and the area of water that may be ensonified to ≥180 dB) during the proposed project.
Bowhead whales have shown similar avoidance of vessel and seismic sounds. Less information is available regarding avoidance of icebreaking sounds; however, avoidance of the overall activity was noted during intensive icebreaking around drill sites in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in 1992. Migrating bowhead whales appeared to avoid the area of drilling and icebreaking by ~25 km (15.5 mi) (Brewer
Similarly, migrating bowheads avoided the area within ~20 km (12.4 mi) of nearshore seismic surveys, and showed less avoidance extending to ~30 km (18.6 mi) (Miller
The available information summarized above suggests that bowhead whales are very likely to avoid areas where received levels are ≥180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Again, making a cautionary assumption that as many as 10% of bowheads may not avoid the 180 dB zone around the airguns, we calculate that 6 individuals could be exposed to ≥180 dB (based on the densities described above and the area of water that may be ensonified to ≥180 dB). During seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in 2007 and 2008, 5 power downs of the full airgun array were made due to sightings of bowhead or unidentified mysticete whales (8 total individuals) within the ≥180 dB exclusion zone. These sightings occurred during >8000 km (4,971 mi) of survey effort in good conditions plus additional effort in poor conditions (Savarese
For seals (principally ringed seals), the proportion exhibiting avoidance is lower than for cetaceans, and thus the received level at which avoidance becomes evident is higher. However, some survey results have shown a statistically significant avoidance of the
Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable information regarding the behavior of seals exposed to seismic pulses (Harris
During more recent seismic surveys in the Arctic (2006-2009), Reiser
However, as stated earlier, in most circumstances marine mammals would avoid areas where intense noise could cause injury, including PTS. Although approximately 23 beluga whales, 8 bowhead whales, and 38 seals (presumably all ringed seals) could theoretically be exposed to received levels above 180 dB re 1 μ Pa (for whales) and 190 dB re 1 μ Pa (for seals), most of them are likely to avoid areas of intense noise and would not incur TTS or PTS (injury). In the unlikely case a small number of individuals animals did not avoid the intense noise, then TTS or even PTS could occur. Assuming that 10% of the individuals that were initially exposed to received levels above 180 dB re 1 μ Pa (for beluga and bowhead whales) and 190 dB re 1 μ Pa (for ringed seals) do not vacate the area, and subsequent exposure leads to some degree of PTS, then approximately 3 beluga whales, 1 bowhead whale, and 4 ringed seals could be taken by Level A harassment. However, NMFS considers this estimate to be very conservative as explained above.
Cetaceans—Effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of an area around the seismic survey and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment,” and possibly mild TTS (Level B harassment), or PTS (Level A harassment), though the latter is not likely.
Using the 160 dB (for pulse) and 120 dB (for non-pulse) criteria, the average estimates of the numbers of individual cetaceans exposed to sounds
Seals—A few seal species are likely to be encountered in the study area, but ringed seal is by far the most abundant in this area. The average estimates of the numbers of individuals exposed to sounds at received levels
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * *an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.
Most of the takes from ION's proposed icebreaking seismic surveys are expected to be Level B harassment,
Of the nine marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed marine survey area, only the bowhead whale is listed as endangered under the ESA. This species is also designated as “depleted” under the MMPA. Despite these designations, the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowheads has been increasing at a rate of 3.4 percent annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2010). Additionally, during the 2001 census, 121 calves were counted, which was the highest yet recorded. The calf count provides corroborating evidence for a healthy and increasing population (Allen and Angliss, 2010), even in the face of ongoing industrial activity and subsistence harvest. There is no critical habitat designated in the U.S. Arctic for the bowhead whale. Certain stocks or populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted seals are listed as endangered or are proposed for listing under the ESA; however, none of those stocks or populations occur in the proposed activity area. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a notice of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476) and a notice of proposed threatened and not warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the
Most of the bowhead whales encountered during the summer will likely show overt disturbance (avoidance) only if they receive airgun sounds with levels ≥160 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms). Odontocete reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, probably in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. However, at least when in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment,” with only limited potential occurrences of TTS (Level B harassment) and PTS (Level A harassment).
Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance are small percentages of the population sizes in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas, as described above.
Finally, as discussed above, since ION is not likely to start its proposed in-ice seismic survey until mid- to late-October when most of the cetaceans (especially bowhead whales) have moved out of the area, the actual take numbers are expected to be much lower.
The many reported cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans from seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other human activities show that co-existence is possible. Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated PSOs, non-pursuit, and shutdowns or power downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges will further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.
Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed marine surveys more than once during the time frame of the project. However, as discussed previously, due to the constant movement of the survey vessel, the probability of an individual pinniped being exposed multiple times is much lower than if the source is stationary. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the pinnipeds' exposure to sounds produced by the proposed marine seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is mostly expected to result in no more than Level B harassment and is anticipated to have no more than a negligible impact on the animals.
The estimated Level B behavioral takes proposed to be authorized represent up to 12.45% of the Beaufort Sea population of approximately 39,258 beluga whales (Allen and Angliss, 2010), up to 0.04% of Bering Sea stock of approximately 48,215 harbor porpoises, 0.12% of the Eastern North Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales, 1.86% of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population of 15,233 individuals assuming 3.4 percent annual population growth from the 2001 estimate of 10,545 animals (Zeh and Punt, 2005), and 1.78% of the Alaska stock of approximately 1,233 minke whales. The take estimates presented for ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals represent up to 24.29, 0.04, 0.04, and 0.04 percent of U.S. Arctic stocks of each species, respectively. These estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment if each animal is taken only once. Although we have estimated that up to 24.29% of ringed seals could be taken as a result of the proposed seismic survey activity, it is important to note that the population densities for marine mammals within the proposed survey area are overestimates. As explained above, because of the lack of fall/winter data, NMFS and ION had to rely on the summer/fall density data to calculate expected densities of marine mammals and potential take estimates. Our analysis has led us to conclude that in the case of ringed seals (and several other species), the number of ringed seals that would occur in the project area during the proposed survey period is expected to be much lower and thus, far fewer ringed seals are actually expected to be taken as a result of ION's in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. Furthermore, it is likely that individual animals could be taken multiple times and be counted as different individuals, thus inflating the percentage of unique individuals that would be affected. Finally, as discussed earlier, the effects to marine mammals that would result from Level B behavioral harassment are expected to be minor and brief, and mostly involve animals temporarily changing their behavior and vacating the proximity of the survey area briefly as the survey vessel and icebreaker approach. Marine mammals are expected to resume their normal activities and reoccupy the area as soon as the vessels move away. Additionally, since the proposed in-ice seismic survey is planned outside the breeding season of marine mammals, no impacts on calves or pups are expected. Further, there is no known marine
Most cetaceans (and particularly Arctic cetaceans) show relatively high levels of avoidance when received sound pulse levels exceed 160 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms), and it is uncommon to sight Arctic cetaceans within the 180 dB radius, especially for prolonged duration. Results from monitoring programs associated with seismic activities in the Arctic indicate that cetaceans respond in different ways to sound levels lower than 180 dB. These results have been used by agencies to support monitoring requirements within distances where received levels fall below 160 dB and even 120 dB. Thus, very few animals would be exposed to sound levels of 180 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms) regardless of detectability by PSOs. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their activities or reasons for being in the area, and occasionally a few individual Arctic cetaceans will tolerate sound levels above 160 dB. Tolerance of levels above 180 dB is infrequent regardless of the circumstances, and marine mammals exposed to levels this high are expected to avoid the source, thereby minimizing the probability of TTS. Therefore, a calculation of the number of cetaceans potentially exposed to >180 dB that is based simply on density would be a gross overestimate of the actual numbers exposed to 180 dB. Such calculations would be misleading unless avoidance response behaviors were taken into account to estimate what fraction of those originally present within the soon-to-be ensonified to >180 dB zone (as estimated from density) would still be there by the time levels reach 180 dB.
It is estimated that up to 1 bowhead whale and 3 beluga whales could be exposed to received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms), and 4 ringed seals could be exposed to received noise levels above 190 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms) for durations long enough to cause TTS if the animals are not detected in time to have mitigation measures implemented (or even PTS if such exposures occurred repeatedly). None of the other species are expected to be exposed to received sound levels anticipated to cause TTS or PTS.
Marine mammals that are taken by TTS are expected to receive minor (in the order of several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary hearing impairment because (1) animals are not likely to remain for prolonged periods within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and the animals are constantly moving, and it is unlikely that the animal will be moving along with the vessel during the survey. Although repeated experience to TTS could result in PTS (Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, even if marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to be mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold. Therefore, even if a few marine mammals receive TTS or PTS, the degree of these effects are expected to be minor and, in the case of TTS, brief, and are not expected to be biologically significant for the population or species.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see the “Anticipated Effects on Habitat” section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to not affect rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in the area. Based on the vast size of the Arctic Ocean where feeding by marine mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist elsewhere. For bowhead whales, the majority of the population would have migrated past many of the feeding areas of the central Beaufort Sea prior to the initiation of activities by ION.
The effects of icebreaking activity are not expected to result in significant modification to marine mammal habitat. Although it is expected that the ice coverage would be
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that ION's 2012 in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas may result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment only, and that the taking from the seismic surveys will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
NMFS has determined that ION's 2012 in-ice marine seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. This determination is supported by information contained in this document and ION's CAA and POC. ION has adopted a spatial and temporal strategy for its Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in-ice seismic survey operation that is intended to avoid subsistence activities. ION plans to start its seismic survey after the fall bowhead harvests have concluded for the communities of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, and its seismic survey is expected to occur far offshore from regular ringed seal hunts. Although hunting may still be occurring in Barrow, ION has agreed to work in the eastern part of the survey area first so as not to overlap with areas used by hunters in Barrow. The late November bowhead harvests on St. Lawrence Island should not be affected by ION's vessel transits through the Bering Strait, which would not occur until the conclusion of the survey in early to mid-December. No other subsistence activity is expected to occur during ION's proposed seismic survey period.
Based on the measures described in ION's POC and CAA, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures (described earlier in this document), and the project design itself, NMFS has determined there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ION's icebreaking marine seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
The bowhead whale is the only marine mammal species currently listed as endangered under the ESA that could occur during ION's proposed in-ice seismic survey period. In addition, there are two marine mammal species that are currently being proposed for listing under the ESA with confirmed occurrence in the proposed project area: ringed and bearded seals. NMFS'
NMFS prepared an EA that includes an analysis of potential environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to ION to take marine mammals incidental to conducting in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during fall/winter 2012. NMFS has finalized the EA and prepared a FONSI for this action. Therefore, preparation of an EIS is not necessary.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to ION to take marine mammals incidental to its in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.