National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Coast Guard
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Management and Budget Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Public Debt Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue 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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to add the NUHOMS® HD cask system to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks. This final rule allows the holders of power reactor operating licenses to store spent fuel in this approved cask system under a general license.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR Part 72, entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” containing procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs.
On May 5, 2004, and as supplemented on July 6, August 16, October 11, October 28, November 19, 2004; February 18, March 7, April 14, May 20, May 24, August 16, 2005; and January 24, February 15, and September 19, 2006, the certificate holder, Transnuclear, Inc. (TN), submitted an application to the NRC to add the NUHOMS® HD cask system to the list of NRC-approved casks for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR 72.214. The NUHOMS® HD System provides for the horizontal storage of high burnup spent pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies in a Dry Shielded Canister (DSC) that is placed in a horizontal storage module (HSM) utilizing an OS-187H transfer cask (TC). The system is an improved version of the Standardized NUHOMS® System described in Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. The NUHOMS® HD System has been optimized for high thermal loads, limited space, and radiation shielding performance. The -32PTH DSC included in this system is similar to the -24PTH DSC submitted for licensing as Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS® System. The -32PTH DSC will be transferred during loading operations using the OS-187H TC. The OS-187H TC is very similar to the OS-197 and OS-197 TCs described in the final safety analysis report for the Standardized NUHOMS® System. The -32PTH DSC will be stored in an HSM, designated the HSM-H. The HSM-H is virtually identical to the HSM-H submitted for licensing as Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS® System. The NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected.
The NRC published a direct final rule (71 FR 25740; May 2, 2006) and the companion proposed rule (71 FR 25782) in the
Based on NRC review and analysis of public comments, the staff has modified, as appropriate, Technical Specifications (TS) and the Approved Contents and Design Features, for the NUHOMS® HD system. The staff has also modified its preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (SER). In particular, regarding the potential for the dry
The proposed TS and SER have been revised in response to Comment 2. Specifically, based on questions from the staff regarding this issue, TN committed in a letter dated September 19, 2006, to add the following to Section 3.4.1.4 of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for the NUHOMS HD design: “If an independent spent fuel storage installation site is located in a coastal salt water marine atmosphere, then any load-bearing carbon steel DSC support structure rail components of any associated HSM-H shall be procured with a minimum 0.20 percent copper content for corrosion resistance.” This commitment has also been captured in NUHOMS® HD TS 4.4.1 for the HSM-H, and the staff made corresponding changes to SER Section 3.2.1 to document its evaluation.
The NRC finds that the TN NUHOMS® HD cask system, as designed and when fabricated and used in accordance with the conditions specified in its CoC, meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72. Thus, use of the TN NUHOMS® HD cask system, as approved by the NRC, will provide adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment. With this final rule, the NRC is approving the use of the TN NUHOMS® HD cask system under the general license in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K, by holders of power reactor operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50. Simultaneously, the NRC is issuing a final SER and CoC that will be effective on January 10, 2007. Single copies of the CoC and SER are available for public inspection and/or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
CoC No. 1030 is added to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks.
The NRC received six comment letters on the proposed rule. The commenters included representatives from industry and members of the public. Copies of the public comments are available for review in the NRC's Public Document Room, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Several of the commenters provided specific comments on the NRC staff's preliminary SER and the TS. To the extent possible, the comments on a particular subject are grouped together. The listing of the Transnuclear, Inc., NUHOMS® HD cask system within 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” has not been changed as a result of the public comments. A review of the comments and the NRC staff's responses follow:
The NRC is aware that BORAL
The staff in the Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division have shared data and reports with the staff in the office of Nuclear Regulatory Research concerning GSI-196, BORAL
Blistering or swelling in BORAL
Neutron attenuation and radiography measurements have been conducted on the BORAL
The NRC is aware that other neutron absorber materials are now available to the cask vendors; however, the NRC does not recommend any brand of material to the vendors. To date, tests have shown that the BORAL
The NRC staff does not dispute the advantages of the near-theoretical-density neutron absorber materials, which have become available in recent years. However, blistering has not been shown to affect dose to workers involved in the cask loading process. Additionally, if hydrogen gas is detected during the loading operations, the vendors and licensees can use mitigating procedures to vent and purge the cask. This procedure is recommended prior to welding; thus, worker safety can be ensured.
The NRC staff does agree that this problem of blistering and hydrogen generation has not been reported in the absorber materials that have a 100-percent dense matrix. However, the NRC has reviewed evaluations by the Energy Power Research Institute (EPRI) and cask vendors, and for the most part, the boron areal density (10B/cm
A significant body of technical literature exists, which provides corrosion rate data for a variety of steel alloys exposed to the elements at coastal sites. From this data, TN recognized that weathering steels provide ample corrosion resistance in a coastal marine atmosphere. This corrosion resistance would assure that the accumulated corrosion loss over a 20-year license period would be immaterial to the structural integrity of the support steel inside the HSM-H.
It should be noted that the data used to determine the required corrosion allowance are for samples fully exposed to the elements. It is known that samples that are fully shielded from the sun and rain show a significantly lower corrosion rate than fully exposed samples. The structural steel of the HSM-H is entirely enclosed inside a ventilated concrete structure that totally shields the steel from sunlight and precipitation. TN chose to employ the higher corrosion rate data for fully exposed samples as the basis for their corrosion allowance. This provides an added degree of conservatism to their design.
In addition to the use of corrosion-resisting steels, TN has specified the application of a corrosion resistant coating over the support steel. The coating may be one of several systems. One system consists of an inorganic zinc primer with an epoxy overcoat. This is an industry-recognized, high performance, and long-lived industrial coating system that is designed to withstand very severe environments. Although the coating is specified, it is not credited in the corrosion rate calculations that are part of the structural steel design margins.
The staff finds that the use of corrosion-resisting steel with a calculated corrosion rate derived from a more severe exposure environment is appropriate. Additionally, the staff finds that the use of a coating system, and the fact that the steel is enclosed in a dry, interior-like environment, provide additional protection against corrosion. Thus, the staff finds that this TN design provides reasonable assurance that the system will not experience any significant corrosion during the 20-year license period at a coastal spent fuel storage site.
Regarding Part (2), the commenter is correct that the canister, in some models of the HSM, is supported in the vertical direction by a series of columns or legs, six in total, that are made of structural steel tubing. These columns are part of a three-dimensional welded and bolted frame anchored vertically and horizontally to the reinforced concrete storage module. The three pairs of columns that are each less than 3.5 feet long support a cross beam which then provides support at three locations for each of the two support rails. The framing design concept is similar to that used in structural steel framing of multi-story buildings, tankage support systems, and other applications where a three-dimensional framing concept is appropriate. In this case, since the frame
The commenter used the term “primary support” and indicated that all primary supports must be inspected periodically. While the NUHOMS® HD can be used at a nuclear power plant, the certification of the dry spent fuel storage system is carried out under 10 CFR part 72 and not 10 CFR part 50. Consequently, the assertion made by the commenter that “all primary supports” must be inspected periodically may be in reference to a requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a(f), for inservice testing requirements for nuclear power reactor facilities for various classes of components. These 10 CFR part 50 requirements do not apply to the passive systems that are under the jurisdiction of 10 CFR part 72. The design criteria used for the design of the NUHOMS® HD system, to support the canisters in the horizontal storage module, are sufficiently robust so that periodic inservice inspections of these structural components are not deemed to be necessary. It is correct that there is a requirement that is identified in 10 CFR 72.122(f) related to testing and maintenance of systems and components that are important to safety. Such systems and components are to be designed to permit inspection. The NUHOMS® HD rail support system could be visually inspected by remote operations using fiber optics into the HSM-H via the vent system, or the HSM-H can be opened, the canister extracted into the transfer cask, and the rail supports inspected, after appropriate radiation surveys and procedures are met. The environmental concern in Part (2) of the comment is addressed in Part (1) response.
The interpretation of the second commenter is not what is reflected in the TS as discussed above. The TS g-values are not generally consistent with the free-field acceleration values at most sites.
The design conditions have included analyses of the canister in place on the rail support system under the design lateral loads from the seismic events, and there is no canister roll off from the rail support system.
Long-term experiments, where stainless steel samples were exposed to the weather at coastal marine sites, have demonstrated that stainless steel is highly resistant to atmospheric corrosion under those conditions. In the case of the TN NUHOMS® HD design, the canister and related support rails are shielded from direct exposure to the weather (being enclosed in a ventilated enclosure). This sheltering from the direct weather would result in little, if any, corrosion compared to the already insignificant amounts that could occur if these components were fully exposed to the weather. Absent corrosion, there is no likelihood that the canister would bind to the support rails. Because of this, and the fact that a lubricant (grease) could be applied to the rails, if desired, the staff believes it to be highly unlikely that any difficulty would arise during a removal operation, even after an extended period of time.
Scenario 1: The transfer cask skid has been unfastened from the trailer and the
Scenario 2: The DSC has been installed in the HSM, but the HSM lid (a heavy circular lid that also restrains the DSC in the axial direction) is not yet in place. An earthquake during this period could cause a major radiation exposure event that could be potentially deadly to the workers.
A large seismic event, during the period of time from when the transfer cask lid is removed and is several feet from the HSM-H, and before the transfer cask is anchored to the HSM-H with a sufficiently large horizontal axial component, could overcome the frictional resistance that keeps the canister inside the transfer cask. This would not, however, be an uncontrolled DSC movement, since the DSC inside the transfer cask has only an approximately
The possibility of the hypothesized scenario is considered to be much less than what is considered significant for design accident conditions arising from handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel. The seismic event, to produce the hypothesized movement, must have a large enough component of acceleration in the longitudinal/axial direction of the positioned transfer cask that can be at any point on the compass, and the event must occur within a time period of 2 to 4 hours. On an annual basis, this would occur only three to five times per year for a given facility. If such a remote accidental event were ever to occur, plant operations personnel would respond by placing temporary shielding with equipment over any exposed portion of the DSC.
Scenario 2: The operations' procedures identify that upon disengagement of the transfer cask from the HSM-H, the canister's axial seismic restraint is installed. This is a design feature that uses a structural steel embedment in the reinforced concrete of the HSM-H as the anchor point for the retainer device. The commenter's assumption that the HSM-H lid or door is the axial retainer for the canister is incorrect.
(1) The cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the storage casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion.
(2) For the HSM-H loaded with a filled -32 PTH DSC, the weight is approximately 207.5 tons that is distributed over the pad area, which, as a minimum, is approximately 200 square feet.
(3) The static load bearing pressure on the supporting soil material would normally be approximately 2075 pounds per square foot, a common value used for residential and commercial building foundations on fine-grained soils.
(4) The loading on the foundation is not considered to be structurally significant or unusually high.
(1) After searching the public filings by TN on this docket and Docket No. 72-1004, the commenter could not find a single evaluation of the consequences of storing fuel horizontally over long periods of time. In discussions between Westinghouse and a utility, the conclusion that they reached was that “additional analyses and evaluation will be needed to determine whether it is permissible to store Westinghouse's fuel horizontally.”
(2) A lot of fuel is already in NUHOMS® at many sites. What is happening to all of the fuel stored outside of the fuel supplier's (Westinghouse's) specifications is unknown because the condition cannot be examined.
There are two sources of stress in the fuel cladding, when in the horizontal orientation, that could result in creep. These are internal pressurization of the fuel rod and gravity. Two possible sources of deformation of the cladding, bending and creep, are possible under the horizontal position. The bending stress and the hoop stress are both considerably less than the yield stress under internal pressure and a horizontal position. The bending deflection, at the center of the span between the grid spacers, due to the downward gravitational load of the fuel, is approximately 3 millimeters. No changes occur in the stresses or radial growth as a result of storage in the horizontal position. The creep deformation is self limiting under both stresses due to the decreasing temperature of the fuel with time. If the initial maximum temperature is kept below 400 °C, as recommended by Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)-11, then the creep deformation under the maximum allowable pressurization is less than 1 percent over a 20-year storage period. No cladding failure is expected at this strain level. The additional downward load, due to the gravitational force from the unsupported, approximately 300 grams of fuel between the grid spacer supports, increases the longitudinal stress by no more than 1 percent of the material strength and results in a minuscule increase of the hoop stress. Therefore, no more additional creep is expected in the horizontal orientation than in the vertical orientation.
In response to (2), the cask vendors specify the range of parameters for the fuel to be stored in the CoC. The worst case fuel is analyzed as in paragraph (1), above. The fuel is evaluated when it is removed from the reactor to determine if it falls in the specified envelope. If it is in this envelope, no adverse fuel performance is expected.
(1) A higher cladding stress caused by a higher internal pressure due to an increased fission gas release from the pellets;
(2) A higher hydrogen content in the cladding resulting in a decrease in mechanical properties; and
(3) A higher heat generation rate.
As long as the fuel burnup is below the approved in-reactor burnup limit (currently 62.5 GWd/MTU) and is maintained in a nonoxidizing atmosphere below 400 °C, there are no active degradation mechanisms that would cause cladding breaches to occur under normal storage conditions. In addition, the structural review must include mechanical properties of the cladding at the limit of the approved burnup to determine the behavior of the fuel under off-normal and accident conditions.
The staff has evaluated the issue of thermal cycling on the behavior of irradiated fuel. Two issues of concern were thermal shock during reflood, if wet unloading occurs, and hydride reorientation. Reflood analysis is required in every SAR to evaluate the ability of the cladding to tolerate the thermal shock to the cladding due to the rapid submergence of the hot fuel in the cool pool water. For the NUHOMS® HD unloading operation, the maximum fuel cladding temperature during cask reflood is calculated to be significantly less than the vacuum drying condition because of the presence of water vapor. Consequently, during cask reflood, a lower temperature rise is expected when compared with that for the cask vacuum drying operations.
Hydride reorientation, which might degrade the mechanical properties of the cladding, occurs when hydrogen goes into solution and is subsequently precipitated under stress during cooling. A number of studies indicate that thermal cycling may contribute to the phenomena of reorientation. To limit the occurrence of hydride reorientation in the cladding during storage, drying, etc., ISG-11, Rev. 3, limits the number of thermal cycles that the fuel can experience to 10 or less. Thermal cycling is only a concern if thermal
Under normal storage conditions, there are no mechanisms to degrade the fuel to the point where a loaded cask would have to be opened prematurely. At later times in the storage period, when unloading and repackaging are expected to occur, the temperatures will be at a lower maximum temperature due to the reduced decay heat, and as a result, less hydrogen (the solubility decreases exponentially with temperature) will be able to go into solution during these operations. In addition, the maximum stress in the rods will be less than at the initial vacuum drying, due to the lower temperature during unloading and repackaging. As a result, hydride reorientation, and consequently thermal cycling, is not of concern during unloading later in the storage period.
The proposed TS and SER have been revised in response to Comment 2 to capture and document TN's commitment to add the following to Section 3.4.1.4 of the SAR for the NUHOMS
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is adding the NUHOMS
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This final rule adds an additional cask to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites without additional site-specific approvals from the Commission. The EA and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the EA and finding of no significant impact are available from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the Commission issued an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72. The amendment provided for the storage of spent nuclear fuel in cask systems with designs approved by the NRC under a general license. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use cask systems with designs approved by the NRC to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. In that rule, four spent fuel storage casks were approved for use at reactor sites and were listed in 10 CFR 72.214. That rule envisioned that storage casks certified in the future could be routinely added to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214 through the rulemaking process. Procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of new spent fuel storage cask designs were provided in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart L.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRC and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would tend to exclude new vendors from the business market without cause and would arbitrarily limit the choice of cask designs available to power reactor licensees. This final rulemaking will eliminate the above problems and is consistent with previous Commission actions. Further, the rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety.
The benefit of this rule to nuclear power reactor licensees is to make available a greater choice of spent fuel storage cask designs that can be used under a general license. The new cask
Based on the above discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the Commission's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and TN. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.
Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).
Certificate Number: 1030.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 10, 2007.
SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the NUHOMS
Docket Number: 72-1030.
Certificate Expiration Date: January 11, 2027.
Model Number: NUHOMS
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”).
Interim rule with request for public comments.
The Board is adopting, on an interim basis, and soliciting comment on amendments to the Board's Regulation O to eliminate certain reporting requirements. These amendments implement section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. The Board proposed and supported eliminating these statutory reporting provisions because the Board had found that they did not contribute significantly to the effective monitoring of insider lending or the prevention of insider abuse.
This interim rule is effective on December 11, 2006. Comments must be received by January 10, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1271, by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
• FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102.
• Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Mark E. Van Der Weide, Senior Counsel (202/452-2263), or Amanda K. Allexon, Attorney (202-452-3818), Legal Division. Users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TTD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.
Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”) restricts the ability of member banks to extend credit to their executive officers, directors, principal shareholders, and to related interests of such persons.
Section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (“Act”) (Pub. L. 109-351) removed several statutory reporting requirements relating to insider lending by member banks. These amendments, which became effective on October 13, 2006, eliminated the statutory provisions that:
• Require a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (“Call Report”) on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report (12 U.S.C. 375a(9));
• Require an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains an extension of credit from another bank in an amount that exceeds the amount the executive officer could obtain from the member bank (12 U.S.C. 375a(6));
• Require an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution to file an annual report with the institution's board of directors during any year in which the officer or shareholder has an outstanding extension of credit from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(i)); and
• Authorize the Federal banking agencies to issue regulations that require the reporting and public disclosure of information related to extensions of credit received by an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(ii)).
The Board proposed and supported eliminating these statutory reporting provisions because the Board had found that they did not contribute significantly to the effective monitoring of insider lending or the prevention of insider abuse.
The Board is adopting, and inviting public comment on, this interim rule to implement the changes made by section 601 of the Act. In particular, the interim rule eliminates:
• Section 215.9 of Regulation O, which requires an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains certain extensions of credit from another bank;
• Section 215.10 of Regulation O, which requires a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Call Report on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report; and
• Subpart B of Regulation O, which requires the reporting and public disclosure of extensions of credit to an executive officer or principal shareholder of a member bank by a correspondent bank of the member bank.
The Board notes that the changes made by section 601 and this interim rule do
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Board certifies that the interim rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The provisions of the rule are effective on December 11, 2006. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Board finds that there is good cause to make the interim rule effective on Decermber 11, 2006. As noted above, the rule implements statutory changes that became effective on October 13, 2006, and also reduces burden. The Board is interested in public comment on all aspects of the interim rule and will revise the interim rule as appropriate after reviewing public comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the interim final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget.
The collections of information that are proposed to be revised by this rulemaking are found in 12 CFR 215.9 and 215.10, and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B. This information previously was required to evidence compliance with the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 375a and 375b) and 12 U.S.C. 1972. The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses, and individuals.
The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.9 and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B is 7100-0034 (FFIEC 004). The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.10 is 7100-0036 (FFIEC 031 and 041). The FFIEC 004 would be discontinued as a result of this rule. The estimated burden per response for each of the paperwork requirements associated with the FFIEC 004 information collection varies between nine minutes and one hour. It is estimated that there are 4,760 respondents and recordkeepers and an average frequency of one response per respondent each year. The total amount of annual burden that would be saved as a result of this rule is estimated to be 5,331 hours. The estimated annual cost savings would be $239,895. In addition, the last page of the FFIEC 031 and 041 reporting forms (loans to executive officers), which is associated with 12 CFR 215.10, would be eliminated as a result of this rule. The estimated burden per response for this portion of the reporting forms is fifteen minutes. It is estimated that there are 919 respondents and an average frequency of four responses per respondent each year. Therefore the total amount of annual burden that would be eliminated is estimated to be 919 hours and there is estimated to be minimal cost savings.
For the FFIEC 004, individual respondent financial information is regarded as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (6) and (8)). However, until the passage of the Act and the issuance of this interim rule, upon request from the public the member bank has been required to disclose the name of each executive officer and principal shareholder who, together with related interests, has loans from correspondent banks equal to a minimum of 5 percent of the member bank's capital and surplus, or $500,000, whichever is less. For the FFIEC 031 and 041, the data are not considered confidential.
The Federal Reserve has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of our collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0034 or 7100-0036), Washington, DC 20503.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Board to use “plain language” in all rules published in the
Credit, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 375a(10), 375b(9) and (10), 1817(k); and Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236 (1991).
(a)
(b)
(2) This part also applies to any extension of credit made by a member bank to a company controlled by such a person, or to a political or campaign committee that benefits or is controlled by such a person.
(3) This part also implements the reporting requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1817(k) concerning extensions of credit by a member bank to its executive officers or principal shareholders (or to the related interests of such persons).
(4) Extensions of credit made to an executive officer, director, or principal shareholder of a bank (or to a related interest of such person) by a correspondent bank also are subject to restrictions set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2).
For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply unless otherwise specified:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any political or campaign committee the funds or services of which will benefit a person or that is controlled by a person. For the purpose of this section, a related interest does not include a bank or a foreign bank (as defined in 12 U.S.C. 3101(7)).
Any member bank, or any officer, director, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of the bank, that violates any provision of this part (other than § 215.9) is subject to civil penalties as specified in section 29 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 504).
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 6, 2006.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine whether certain main landing gear (MLG) drag stay units (DSUs) are installed. This AD also requires an ultrasonic inspection to determine if certain tubes are installed in the affected DSUs of the MLG, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the MLG during landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG.
This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 16, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this AD.
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received.
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings.
MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the
We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to the commenter's request that service documents be made available to the public by publication in the
In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) during landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the MLG drag stay units (DSUs) to determine whether Dowty Aerospace is the manufacturer and, before further flight, inspect Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs to determine whether part number (P/N) 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, or 200684002 is installed. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of these inspections if the manufacturer and the part number of the MLG DSU can be conclusively determined from that review. For airplanes equipped with MLG DSUs other than Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs, and for airplanes equipped with Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs having part numbers other than P/N 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, and 200684002, no further action is required by this AD, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(g) For airplanes equipped with DSUs having P/N 200261001, 200485001, or 200684001: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection to determine if a tube having P/N 200485300 with a straight bore, or a tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore), is installed on the DSUs of the MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004.
Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004, refers to Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; and Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable, as appropriate sources of service information for inspecting MLG DSUs.
(h) If any tube having P/N 200485300 with a straight bore is found installed during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, re-identify the DSU with P/N 200261004, 200485004, or 200684004, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable. After re-identifying the DSU, no further action is required by this AD for that DSU; however airplanes are still subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(i) If any tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore) is found installed during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, re-identify the DSU in accordance with paragraphs 2.A.(4)(a) and 2.A.(4)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable. Following accomplishment of the re-identification, before further flight, do the inspection specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(j) For airplanes equipped with re-identified DSUs having P/N 200261002, 200485002, 200684002, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking in the re-identified DSUs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable.
(1) For airplanes equipped with any DSU re-identified as P/N 200684003, 200261003, or 200485003: If no crack is detected, no further action is required by this AD for that DSU; however airplanes are still subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes equipped with any DSU re-identified as P/N 200684002, 200261002, or 200485002: If no crack is detected, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until the actions specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this AD are done.
(ii) At the next MLG overhaul but no later than 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, rework and re-identify the DSU as P/N 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, as applicable, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(3) If any crack is detected and the crack signal indication of any DSU tube is greater than or equal to 80 percent, before further flight, replace the DSU with a re-identified DSU having P/N 200261004, 200485004, 200684004, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(4) If any crack is detected and the crack signal indication of any DSU tube is greater than zero percent but less than 80 percent, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until the actions specified in paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this AD are done.
(ii) At the next MLG overhaul but no later than 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, replace the DSU with a DSU having P/N 200261004, 200485004, 200684004, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(k) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG DSU, P/N 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, or 200684002, on any airplane, except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(m) Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-003, dated April 29, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(n) You must use the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993, contains the following effective pages:
Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993, contains the following effective pages:
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new Airworthiness Directive (AD) for all Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing (previously The Lancair Company) Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes equipped with Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA02260CH, Thermawing Deice System (also known as E-Vade). This AD requires you to deactivate the deice system and install a placard in clear view of the pilot. This AD results from problems with the installation of the Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Thermawing Deice System following STC SA02260CH. We are issuing this AD to prevent a short circuit condition at the deice heater connector, which could result in damage to the wings and horizontal stabilizer. This damage could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective on December 21, 2006.
As of December 21, 2006, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
We must receive any comments on this AD by February 9, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD.
•
•
•
•
•
•
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems, 1625 Lost Nation Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094; telephone: (440) 951-4744; fax: (440) 951-4725.
To view the comments to this AD, go to
Roy Boffo, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone: (847) 294-7564; fax: (847) 294-7834.
We received reports of problems with the installation of the Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Thermawing Deice System (also known as E-Vade) on Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes following Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA02260CH.
A short circuit condition at the deice heater connector to the copper mesh material imbedded in the composite airplane structure (for lightning protection) caused burning of the wings and horizontal stabilizer, which created holes in the structure.
The short circuit was caused by insufficient removal of copper mesh when the deice heater connectors were installed.
This condition, if not corrected, could cause damage to the wings and horizontal stabilizer resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We reviewed Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Service Letter Bulletin No. SL-06-001, Issue Date: November 15, 2006. The service information describes procedures for disabling the E-Vade system.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires disabling the E-Vade system and installing a placard in clear view of the pilot.
In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and an opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket that contains the AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on December 21, 2006.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes, all serial numbers equipped with Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA02260CH, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from problems with the installation of the Kelly Aerospace Thermawing Deice System (also known as E-Vade) following STC SA02260CH. We are issuing this AD to prevent a short circuit condition at the deice heater connector, which could result in damage to the wings and horizontal stabilizer. This damage could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done:
(f) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Roy Boffo, Aerospace Engineer, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone: (847) 294-7564; fax: (847) 294-7834, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(g) You must use Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Service Letter Bulletin No. SL-06-001, Issue Date: November 15, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems, 1625 Lost Nation Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094; telephone: (440) 951-4744; fax: (440) 951-4725.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER and -135KE airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This AD requires inspecting the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire harness and the direct current (DC) fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that the FQIS wire harness may not be properly attached at its attachment points or properly separated from the DC fuel pump wire harness. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between those harnesses or chafing of the harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion.
This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 16, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this AD.
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
EMBRAER advises that Revision 04, dated November 7, 2005, of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions, has been revised. EMBRAER notes that EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006, contains minor changes and that no additional work is required.
American Eagle (AE) asks that Revision 05 of the referenced service bulletin be added to paragraph (f) of the AD as the source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions. AE states that the only change to Revision 05 of the service bulletin is the reduced effectivity.
We agree with the commenters. We have reviewed Revision 05 of the service bulletin and agree that it does not necessitate additional work; Revision 04 of the service bulletin was referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions. We have revised paragraph (f) of the AD to reflect the revised service bulletin. In addition, we have revised the table in paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that accomplishing the actions in paragraph (f) of the AD in accordance with Revision 04 of the service bulletin is also considered to be an acceptable method of compliance.
EMBRAER notes that only airplanes with dry wing stubs are affected by the service bulletin, but the NPRM applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER and EMB-145 airplanes. EMBRAER states that since only Model EMB-135ER and -135KE airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes have dry wing stub configurations, the applicability in the NPRM should be changed to identify only those airplanes.
AE asks that the applicability in the NPRM be limited to Model EMB-135ER and EMB-145ER airplanes only. AE also notes that only airplanes with dry wing stubs are affected by the NPRM. AE adds that it does not operate the affected airplanes.
We agree with EMBRAER for the reasons provided. We have changed the applicability throughout this AD to reflect the applicability identified by EMBRAER. We have also changed the number of affected airplanes from 494 to 35 in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD.
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Document Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporated by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the
We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
We are currently reviewing our practice of publishing proprietary service information. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. However, we consider that to delay this AD action for that reason would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the requirements in this AD must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have not changed the AD in this regard.
We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD to specify that the actions required in that paragraph must be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. In addition, we have clarified the specific section of the EMBRAER Standard Wiring Practices Manual and identified it as one approved method of compliance for doing the required actions.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD affects about 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $2,800, or $80 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER and -135KE airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from a report that the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire harness may not be properly attached at its attachment points or properly separated from the direct current (DC) fuel pump wire harness. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between those harnesses or chafing of the harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time general visual inspection of the FQIS wire harness and the DC fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(g) If any broken, frayed, cracked, or damaged wire, or a damaged harness, is found: Before further flight, repair the damaged wire or harness in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. One approved method is using Section 20-21-00 of the EMBRAER Standard Wiring Practices Manual.
(h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD.
(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(j) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-03-01, dated April 19, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(k) You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006, contains the following effective pages:
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is issuing another temporary final rule to continue a temporary regulated navigation area (RNA) from the entrance of East Rockaway Inlet to the Atlantic Beach Bridge, Nassau County, New York. Significant shoaling in this area has reduced the depths of the navigable channel and has increased the risk of vessels with drafts of greater than 5 feet carrying petroleum products as cargo grounding in the channel, and the potential for a significant oil spill. This rule will continue to restrict passage of commercial vessels carrying petroleum products with a loaded draft in excess of 5 feet.
This rule is effective from December 1, 2006, until June 1, 2007.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-06-142 and will be available for inspection or copying at Sector Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant D. Miller, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at (203) 468-4596.
On December 16, 2005, we published a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled “Regulated Navigation Area; East Rockaway Inlet to Atlantic Beach Bridge, Nassau County, Long Island, NY” in the
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The original TFR was urgently needed to protect the maritime public from shoaling hazards in East Rockaway Inlet. Specifically, action was needed to prevent vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet from transiting the area so as to avoid the potential hazards associated with a grounding of a vessel.
East Rockaway Inlet has experienced significant shoaling causing the channel to migrate towards the west. Water depths in the federal navigation channel have been reduced in some areas to as low as 5 feet. This channel was last dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers during the winter of 2004-2005. However, the shoaling in this area has reduced depths to a point where transit for vessels drawing greater than 5 feet increases the immediate risk of grounding. Therefore, the Coast Guard has relocated the channel buoys to the west to account for channel migration. While these aids now mark the deepest water in the channel, this channel has experienced rapid shoaling in the past, and is expected to experience the same in the future. The potential for significant shoaling continues to present a danger to the maritime public and thus appropriate regulatory measures are needed to continue to protect the maritime public from those hazards in East Rockaway Inlet. Accordingly, the Coast Guard anticipates that permanent regulations will be needed to protect the maritime users from the risk of grounding as well as the general public from the grounding hazards and resultant potential consequences of discharging petroleum into the navigable channel and surrounding area. We anticipate that by June 2007 we will be able to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking proposing that the RNA be made permanent.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
In the last temporary final rule extending the effective period of the RNA, we requested post-promulgation comments. The Coast Guard has received no written comments or complaints to suggest any modification of the scope of the RNA.
East Rockaway Inlet is on the South Shore of Long Island, in Nassau County, New York. The Inlet has experienced significant shoaling since dredging was completed in the late winter of 2004-2005, causing the channel to migrate towards the west. Water depths in the area designated by the Army Corps of Engineers as the Federal navigation channel have been reduced in some areas to as low as 5 feet. This channel was last dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers during the winter of 2004-2005. The channel buoys were relocated to the west to account for channel migration. East Rockaway Inlet is frequented by small coastal tankers and tugs towing oil barges supplying two facilities: Sprague Energy Oceanside, located in Oceanside, Long Island, New York, a supplier of home heating oil for Long Island, New York, and Keyspan E.S. Barrett, an electrical power generation facility, located in Island Park, Long Island, New York. The shoaling in this area has reduced depths to a point where transit for vessels drawing greater than 5 feet increases the risk of immediate grounding, and the potential for a significant oil spill resulting from a grounding. Similar shoaling led to the groundings in late 2003 and in 2004 of small coastal tankers carrying home heating oil. Additional time is necessary to ensure the public has sufficient time to participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard is continuing a temporary RNA in place until June 1, 2007, to allow the establishment of a permanent regulated navigation area by notice-and-comment rulemaking.
This rule will continue to provide for the safety of vessel traffic and the maritime public in and around East Rockaway Inlet, Long Island, New York. This regulation establishes a temporary RNA on the navigable waters of the East Rockaway Inlet in an area bounded by lines drawn from the approximate position of the Silver Point breakwater buoy (LLN 31500) at 40°34′56″ N, 073°45′19″ W, running north to a point of land on the northwest side of the inlet at position 40°35′28″ N, 073°46′12″ W, thence easterly along the shore to the east side of the Atlantic Beach Bridge, State Route 878, over East Rockaway Inlet, thence across said bridge to the south side of East Rockaway Inlet, thence westerly along the shore and across the water to the beginning.
The rule described herein prohibits the transit of vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo, with a loaded draft greater than 5 feet, through the RNA. Operators of vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft greater than five feet who wish to transit the regulated navigation area must request permission from the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. They should seek permission at least 48 hours prior to transiting the area to prevent delays and minimize the risk of denial of entry.
As under the current TFR, the COTP will consider the following factors when considering requests to enter or transit the RNA; environmental and safety factors, including but not limited to: Weather conditions affecting transit (
The Coast Guard is continuing a temporary regulated navigation area until June 1, 2007, because we anticipate we will need this much time to allow for public participation and comment on a proposed rulemaking for a permanent rule. This temporary final rule will be in effect from December 1, 2006 until June 1, 2007.
Any violation of the RNA described herein, is punishable by, among others, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions.
In addition to publishing this TFR in the
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this rule will be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: The regulated navigation area limits only vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet; operators of vessels with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet may request permission to transit the regulated navigation area from the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. Recreational and other maritime traffic not covered by this rule is not prohibited from transiting this area.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels carrying petroleum products intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the East Rockaway Inlet covered by the regulated navigation area; Sprague Energy Oceanside, located in Oceanside, Long Island, New York, a supplier of home heating oil, and Keyspan E.S. Barrett, an electrical power generation facility, located in Island Park, Long Island, New York, which receive the vessels affected by this regulated navigation area. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant Junior Grade D. Miller, Waterways Management
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).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect 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 will not concern 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 will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a regulated navigation area. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2) Operators of vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft greater than 5 feet must request to transit the regulated navigation area to the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound (COTP). They should seek permission at least 48 hours prior to transiting the area to prevent delays and minimize the risk of denial of entry. Factors the COTP will consider before granting permission to enter or transit the RNA described in paragraph (a) of this section are: Environmental and safety factors, including, but not limited to: Weather conditions affecting transit (
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing full approval of certain revisions and a limited approval/limited disapproval of other revisions to the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0630 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793), EPA proposed approval of the provisions of chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) listed below in Table 1.
We proposed to approve these regulations because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the regulations and our evaluation.
On August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793), EPA also proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the provisions listed in Table 2.
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these provisions improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because, in certain respects, these provisions conflict with section 110 of the Act. Specifically, these provisions provide inappropriate Director's discretion in NAC 445B.262, paragraph 1, and NAC 445B.267, paragraph 1, which are discussed in greater detail in our proposed action.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from Jennifer L. Carr and Michael Elges, Division of Environmental Protection, State of Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, by letter dated September 25, 2006. We summarize the comments and provide our responses in the paragraphs that follow. Note that some of the comments in the September 25, 2006 letter are directed only at a related EPA proposal published on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50875), and these comments will be addressed in a separate final action we expect to publish in the near future.
On February 16, 2005, NDEP submitted a large revision to the applicable Nevada SIP. The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal includes new and amended statutes and rules as well as requests for rescission of certain rules in the existing SIP. The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also contains documentation of public participation (i.e., notice and public hearing) and adoption for all of the submitted rules through the hearing on November 30, 2004 held by the State Environmental Commission.
On January 12, 2006, NDEP submitted an amended version of the February 16, 2005 SIP submittal. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal contains updated regulatory materials including new and amended rules adopted by the State Environmental Commission on October 4, 2005 but otherwise contains the same materials as the earlier submittal with the exception of the documentation of public participation. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal only contains documentation of public participation for rule amendments adopted by the State Environmental Commission on October 4, 2005 but did not re-submit the related documentation included in the earlier submittal. Therefore, the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal supersedes the earlier SIP revision submittal dated February 16, 2005 for all purposes except for the documentation of public participation for adoption dates from November 30, 2004 and earlier.
Our consideration of the rules submitted on January 12, 2006 and proposed for approval or limited approval on August 31, 2006 takes into account the public participation documentation contained in the earlier submittal (except, as noted, for the rules adopted on October 4, 2005 for which documentation was provided by NDEP in the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal). CAA section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(3). The public participation documentation provided by NDEP in the February 16, 2005 SIP submittal (and in the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal package for the October 4, 2005 rule amendments) is sufficient for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).
NDEP's SIP submittal dated March 24, 2006 includes a definition of the term “person” in section 0.039 of title 0—Preliminary Chapter—General Provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The general definition of “person” in NRS 0.039 is the State's basic definition of this term, and other statutory and regulatory provisions that cite “person” need only define the term for the specific purposes therein as necessary to add or subtract entities listed in the basic definition of “person” in NRS 0.039. We approved NRS 0.039, as submitted on March 24, 2006, and NRS 445.150 (“Person”), in a final rule published on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51766). NDEP's submittal, and EPA's approval, of the basic definition of “person” in NRS 0.039 and the expanded definition of “person” for air pollution control purposes in NRS 445B.150, together with NDEP's submittal, and EPA's approval, of NAC 445B.134 (“Person”), which was included in the proposal finalized herein, provide the complete definition of “person” for the purposes of Nevada's air pollution regulatory program.
EPA also appreciates the State's effort to amend NAC 445B.134 to further clarify the reliance of the regulatory
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing the approval of the provisions listed in Table 1 and also finalizing the limited approval of the provisions listed in Table 2. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the Nevada SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rules listed in Table 2. EPA recommends that Nevada revise the deficient provisions to exclude the director's discretion conditions. No sanctions are associated with this action because this is not a required submittal.
Note that the submitted provisions have all been adopted by the State Environmental Commission, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent EPA or the state agency from enforcing them.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state rules as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(56) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) is requesting that the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine (also known as the Midcoast area) ozone nonattainment areas be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the ME DEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of maintenance plans for the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine areas that provide for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. EPA is approving the redesignation requests and the maintenance plan as revisions to the Maine SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is also approving the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the 8-hour maintenance plan for these areas for purposes of transportation conformity.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-OAR-0226. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, e-mail
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 60937), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maine. The NPR proposed approval of Maine's request to redesignate the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas and a SIP revision that establishes separate maintenance plans for these areas. The maintenance plans set forth how each area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years in accordance with Section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The NPR also proposed approval of the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) associated with the maintenance plans. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the ME DEP on August 3, 2006. Other specific requirements of Maine's redesignation requests, the 175A maintenance plans, and the MVEBs, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR, however, two commenters did discover minor typographical errors in the NPR. EPA agrees with these commenters that there were typographical errors in the NPR. Some of the values for monitored ozone levels were misstated in two tables in the NPR. These misstatements were minor, and did not affect EPA's conclusions on the redesignation requests, that the design values for these areas qualify for redesignation. A response to comments document correcting the record was placed into the docket for this action.
EPA is approving the State of Maine's August 3, 2006 redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine areas, because the requirements for approval have been satisfied for each area. EPA has evaluated Maine's redesignation requests, and determined that they meet the redesignation criteria set forth in
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(g) Approval. EPA is approving a redesignation request for the Portland, Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Maine submitted this request on August 3, 2006. The request contains the required Clean Air Act Section 175A maintenance plan. The plan establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2016 of 16.659 tons per summer day (tpsd) of volatile organic compound and 32.837 tpsd of nitrogen oxide (NO
(h) Approval. EPA is approving a redesignation request for the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Maine submitted this request on August 3, 2006. The request contains the required Clean Air Act Section 175A maintenance plan. The plan establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2016 of 3.763 tons per summer day (tpsd) of volatile organic compound and 6.245 tpsd of nitrogen oxide (NO
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 (as described above), DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing a one-time inspection for damage of the electrical cable harness assembly located on the left and right wing root to fuselage aft seal, and repair if necessary; and reworking the fuselage aft seal assembly (left and right) to create a clearance between the electrical cable assemblies and the edge of the fairing panel. This proposed AD results from a report that an airplane encountered an uncommanded propeller feathering during climb, which resulted in an emergency landing. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing or grounding of the wiring against the aft seal assemblies, which, if not corrected, could interrupt the operation of various systems, including the propeller feather control, alternating current (AC) electrical power, and standby hydraulic power, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 10, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
•
•
Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD.
Douglas Wagner, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7306; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. TCCA advises that a Model DHC-8 airplane encountered an uncommanded propeller feathering during climb, which resulted in an emergency landing. Investigation showed that the wing-to-fuselage aft seal assembly had chafed through the wires associated with the auto-feather control system. Chafing or grounding of the wiring against the aft seal assemblies, if not corrected, could interrupt the operation of various systems, including the propeller feather control, alternating current (AC) electrical power, and standby hydraulic power, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, dated August 2, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting for damage of the electrical cable harness assembly located at the left and right wing root to fuselage aft seal, and repair if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures for reworking the fuselage aft seal assembly (left and right) to create a clearance between the electrical cable assemblies and the edge of the fairing panel. The rework described in Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, contains the instructions for
These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
Where the TCCA airworthiness directive specifies to “visually inspect” and the service bulletin specifies to “inspect” the electrical cable harness assembly, this proposed AD refers to the inspection as a general visual inspection. We have included the definition for a general visual inspection in a note in the proposed AD.
This proposed AD would affect about 136 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $75 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $53,720, or $395 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 10, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 606, inclusive.
(d) This AD results from a report that an airplane encountered an uncommanded propeller feathering during climb, which resulted in an emergency landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing or grounding of the wiring against the aft seal assemblies, which, if not corrected, could interrupt the operation of various systems, including the propeller feather control, alternating current (AC) electrical power, and standby hydraulic power, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD. Do all actions in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, dated August 2, 2005. The actions in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD must be done before the rework in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, contains the instructions for incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary Package 8Y122031, Revision B, dated December 2, 2004. (The technical content of Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS8Q2400005, Revision C, dated January 7, 2004, is equivalent to Bombardier Modification Summary Package 8Y122031, Revision B.)
(1) Do a general visual inspection for damage of the electrical cable harness assembly located on the left and right wing root-to-fuselage aft seal. If any damage is found, repair the damage before further flight.
(2) Rework the fuselage aft seal assembly (left and right) to create a clearance between the electrical cable assemblies and the edge of the fairing panel.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual
(g) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-83, dated December 23, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(h)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(i) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-15, dated June 14, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 72-22-01, which applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) (The Beech Aircraft Company and BEECH previously held Type Certificate Nos. 3A15, 3A16, 5A3, and A-777) Models 33, 35, 36, 45, and 95 series airplanes. AD 72-22-01 currently requires you to determine if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race), replace any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight, install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers, and repetitively lubricate the uplock mechanism. Since we issued AD 72-22-01, there was a recent incident involving a RAC Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplane where a seizure of the uplock rollers occurred. This malfunction of the uplock rollers is addressed in AD 72-22-01. Thus, the FAA has determined that the actions of AD 72-22-01 should also apply to certain serial numbers of the Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain all the actions of AD 72-22-01, would add those Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes to the applicability of this proposed AD, and would list out the specific serial numbers. We are proposing this AD to decrease the possibility of gear-up landings caused by seizure of the uplock rollers.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 9, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD:
• DOT Docket web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140.
Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4174; facsimile: (316) 946-4107.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Reports of RAC 33, 35, 36, 45, and 95 series airplanes equipped with non-greasible uplock rollers having a solid inner race that renders lubrication of the uplock roller mechanism ineffective
• Determining if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race);
• Replacing any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight;
• Installing a hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers; and
• Repetitively lubricating the uplock mechanism.
Since we issued AD 72-22-01, there was a recent incident involving a RAC Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplane where a seizure of the uplock rollers occurred. The design of the uplock rollers is the same as those uplock rollers on the airplanes addressed by AD 72-22-01.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in a gear-up landing.
We have reviewed Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211, Rev. I, and Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211.
The service information describes procedures for:
• Determining if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race);
• Replacing any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight;
• Installing a hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers; and
• Repetitively lubricating the uplock mechanism.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 72-22-01 with a new AD that would retain all the actions of AD 72-22-01, would add those Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes to the applicability of this proposed AD, and would list out the specific serial numbers. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 9,714 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
The differences in costs between this proposed AD and AD 72-22-01 are the costs associated with the number of Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes that were not affected by AD 72-22-01.
We estimate the following costs to do the proposed actions to determine if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race), replace any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight, install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers, and initially lubricate the uplock mechanism:
We estimate the following costs for each lubrication of the uplock mechanism.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 72-22-01, Amendment 39-1544, and adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by February 9, 2007.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 72-22-01, Amendment 39-1544.
(c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers (SNs) that are certificated in any category:
(1) Group 1 (maintains the actions from AD 72-22-01):
(2) Group 2: Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes, SNs TF-1 through TF-70.
(d) This AD results from a recent incident involving a Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplane where a seizure of the uplock rollers occurred. We are issuing this AD to decrease the possibility of gear-up landings caused by seizure of the uplock rollers.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done:
(f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4174; facsimile: (316) 946-4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(g) AMOCs approved for AD 72-22-01 are approved for this AD.
(h) To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as executive seats equipped with pedestal legs that were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 10, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301; telephone (816) 329-4059; fax (816) 329-4090.
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and
This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation authority for Switzerland, has issued FOCA AD HB-2006-444, dated November 7, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that executive seats equipped with pedestal legs were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. As a consequence the pedestal legs may not perform as intended under emergency landing conditions. In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one time inspection to identify the Vendor Part Number (VPN) of the pedestal legs and the Serial Number (S/N) of the executive seat and the replacement of the pedestal legs if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Pilatus Aircraft Limited has issued Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006, and DeCrane Aircraft Seating Company, Inc. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 394 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection requirement of the proposed AD. In addition, we estimate this proposed AD would affect about 59 seats and take about 1 work-hour per seat to comply with the parts replacement requirement of the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $15,760, or $40 per product for inspection and $4,720, or $80 per seat for parts replacement.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, Under the Authority Delegated to Me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by January 10, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 683, that are:
(1) Certificated in any category; and
(2) Equipped with executive passenger seats Model Number 4006 manufactured by DeCrane Aircraft Seating Company, Inc. Vendor Part Number (VPN) 403150-1 or 403150-2 with Serial Numbers (S/N) identified in DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006.
(d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states that executive seats equipped with pedestal legs were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. As a consequence the pedestal legs may not perform as intended under emergency landing conditions. In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one time inspection to identify the VPN of the pedestal legs and the S/N of the executive seat and the replacement of the pedestal legs if necessary.
(e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD:
(i) Perform an inspection to identify the VPN of the pedestal legs and the S/N of the executive seat following the accomplishment instructions in Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006.
(ii) If during the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD any pedestal legs with a VPN and executive seats with a S/N which correspond with the data in DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006 are found, prior to further flight, replace the affected pedestal legs following the accomplishment instructions in Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006, with new pedestal legs with VPN 431005-17 and 431005-18. The removed parts must be returned to Pilatus.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install any executive seats model number 4006 produced by DeCrane Aircraft Seating Company, Inc., VPN 403150-1 or 403150-2 with S/Ns identified in DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006, on any Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplane, unless the mandatory actions of this AD have been implemented.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(f) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(g) Refer to Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB-2006-444, dated November 7, 2006; Pilatus Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006; and DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006, for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as possible undersize rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 10, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090.
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and
This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/8, Drafted: May 9, 2006; Effective Date: August 31, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states the finding of the possible installation of undersize rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2. The MCAI requires that you inspect the rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2, and replace undersize rivets. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd has issued PAC Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/019, Date Issued: April 21, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 16 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,660, or $1,380 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by January 10, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 102, 104 through 120, 122, and 125, certificated in any category.
(d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states the finding of the possible installation of undersize rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2.
(e) Unless already done, within the next 150 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2, and replace undersize rivets, following PAC Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/019, Date Issued: April 21, 2006.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
No differences.
(f) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
(g) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD DCA/750XL/8, Drafted: May 9, 2006; Effective Date: August 31, 2006; and PAC Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/019, Date Issued: April 21, 2006, for related information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Request for comments.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S.
Written comments should be received on or before January 10, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Requests for additional information about these licensing procedures should be directed to the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, telephone: (202) 622-2480. Additional information about these licensing procedures is also available under the heading “Other OFAC Sanctions Programs” at
The current procedures used by OFAC for authorizing the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran are set forth in 31 CFR 538.523-526 and 31 CFR 560.530-533. Under the provisions of section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation, during the preceding two-year period, of the licensing procedures required by section 906 of the Act for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. This report is to include:
(1) The number and types of licenses applied for;
(2) The number and types of licenses approved;
(3) The average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval;
(4) The extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented; and
(5) A description of comments received from interested parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures were effective, after holding a public 30-day comment period.
This notice solicits comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. Interested parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received on or before January 10, 2007 will be considered by OFAC in developing the report to the Congress. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires written comments. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the comments be treated confidentially because of their business proprietary nature or for any other reason. OFAC will return such comments when submitted by regular mail to the person submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments made will be a matter of public record. Copies of the public record concerning these regulations may be obtained from OFAC's Web site (
Effective September 21, 2004, Executive Order 13357 terminated the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12543 of January 7, 1986, with respect to the policies and actions of the Government of Libya and revoked Executive Orders 12543, 12544 of January 8, 1986, and 12801 of April 15, 1992 (all of which had imposed sanctions against Libya in response to the national emergency). Consequently, the prohibitions of the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 550 (the “LSR”), have been lifted, and all property and interests in property blocked under the LSR have been unblocked. Accordingly, specific licenses issued by OFAC for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Libya are no longer required pursuant to the LSR and, therefore, OFAC is not soliciting comments on its licensing procedures under that program. This termination of the Libya Sanctions does not, however, eliminate the need to comply with other provisions of law, including the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Notice of intent to develop regulations.
In accordance with section 205 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, this annual notice solicits proposals and recommendations for developing new and modifying existing safe harbor provisions under the Federal anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act), as well as developing new OIG Special Fraud Alerts.
To assure consideration, public comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on February 9, 2007.
Please mail or deliver your written comments to the following address: Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: OIG-111-N, Room 5246, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
We do not accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer to file code OIG-111-N. Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 5541 of the Office of Inspector General at 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Joel Schaer, (202) 619-0089, OIG Regulations Officer.
Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)) provides criminal penalties for
Since the statute on its face is so broad, concern has been expressed for many years that some relatively innocuous commercial arrangements may be subject to criminal prosecution or administrative sanction. In response to the above concern, the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, section 14 of Public Law 100-93, specifically required the development and promulgation of regulations, the so-called “safe harbor” provisions, specifying various payment and business practices which, although potentially capable of inducing referrals of business reimbursable under the Federal health care programs, would not be treated as criminal offenses under the anti-kickback statute and would not serve as a basis for administrative sanctions. OIG safe harbor provisions have been developed “to limit the reach of the statute somewhat by permitting certain non-abusive arrangements, while encouraging beneficial and innocuous arrangements” (56 FR 35952, July 29, 1991). Health care providers and others may voluntarily seek to comply with these provisions so that they have the assurance that their business practices will not be subject to liability under the anti-kickback statute or related administrative authorities.
Existing OIG safe harbors describing those practices that are sheltered from liability are codified in 42 CFR 1001.
OIG has also periodically issued Special Fraud Alerts to give continuing guidance to health care providers with respect to practices OIG finds potentially fraudulent or abusive. The Special Fraud Alerts encourage industry compliance by giving providers guidance that can be applied to their own practices. OIG Special Fraud Alerts are intended for extensive distribution directly to the health care provider community, as well as to those charged with administering the Federal health care programs.
In developing these Special Fraud Alerts, OIG has relied on a number of sources and has consulted directly with experts in the subject field, including those within OIG, other agencies of the Department, other Federal and State agencies, and those in the health care industry.
Section 205 of Public Law 104-191 requires the Department to develop and publish an annual notice in the
In developing safe harbors for a criminal statute, OIG is required to engage in a thorough review of the range of factual circumstances that may fall within the proposed safe harbor subject area so as to uncover potential opportunities for fraud and abuse. Only then can OIG determine, in consultation with the Department of Justice, whether it can effectively develop regulatory limitations and controls that will permit beneficial and innocuous arrangements within a subject area while, at the same time, protecting the Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries from abusive practices.
In accordance with the requirements of section 205 of Public Law 104-191, OIG last published a
In accordance with section 205 of HIPAA, we will consider a number of factors in reviewing proposals for new or modified safe harbor provisions, such as the extent to which the proposals would effect an increase or decrease in—
• Access to health care services,
• The quality of services,
• Patient freedom of choice among health care providers,
• Competition among health care providers,
• The cost to Federal health care programs,
• The potential overutilization of the health care services, and
• The ability of health care facilities to provide services in medically underserved areas or to medically underserved populations.
In addition, we will also take into consideration other factors, including, for example, the existence (or nonexistence) of any potential financial benefit to health care professionals or providers that may take into account their decisions whether to (1) order a health care item or service or (2) arrange for a referral of health care items or services to a particular practitioner or provider.
In determining whether to issue additional Special Fraud Alerts, we will also consider whether, and to what extent, the practices that would be identified in a new Special Fraud Alert may result in any of the consequences set forth above, as well as the volume and frequency of the conduct that would be identified in the Special Fraud Alert.
A detailed explanation of justifications for, or empirical data supporting, a suggestion for a safe harbor or Special Fraud Alert would be helpful and should, if possible, be included in any response to this solicitation.
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 Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 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.
If these forms were not used, the Federal Government's ability to oversee the Youth Conservation Corps program would be greatly impaired. The organizational and liability issues that would result from inability to collect the information needed to manage the program would be virtually insurmountable.
The Exchange Agreement documents the conditions necessary to complete the exchange. It contains information identifying parties, description of lands and interests to be exchanged, identification of all reserved and outstanding interests, and all other terms and conditions necessary to complete the exchange.
This information must accompany a concise statement explaining how the environmental disclosure documents, if any, and proposed plan, amendment, or revision are inconsistent with law, regulation, Executive Order, or policy and any recommendations for change. The Reviewing Officer then reviews the objection(s) and relevant information and responds to the objector(s) in writing.
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.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006, 2:15 p.m.-3:15 p.m.
Cohen Building, Room 3360, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.
Department of Commerce.
Notice of Amendment of Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C.552a(e)(4) and (11), the Department of Commerce is issuing notice of intent to amend the system of records under COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies. This amendment adds to this system those records compiled in conjunction with the Department of Commerce's Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace Program. We invite public comment on the proposed changes in this publication.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before January 10, 2007. Unless comments are received, the amendments to the system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the
Phyllis Alexander, Office of Human Resources Management, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-4807.
Comments may be mailed to Phyllis Alexander, Office of Human Resources Management, Room 5001, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Comments may be submitted electronically to the following electronic mail address:
This amendment adds to the referenced system those files containing records compiled in accordance with the Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace Program under the requirements of Executive Order 12564: Public Law 100-71, dated July 11, 1987.
Under location d., after “Human Resources Management, International Trade Administration,” delete “Room 3512,” and insert “Room 7060,”.
Under location e., after “National Institute of Standards and Technology, Administration Building,” delete “Room A-123, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899-3550.” and insert “100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1720, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1720.”
Under location f., after “For employees of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:” delete “Human Resources Management Office,” and insert “NOAA Workforce Management Office,”. After “and the following Administrative Support Centers:” delete “DOC/NOAA/Eastern Administrative Support Center, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby Street, Room 815, Norfolk, Virginia 23510; DOC/NOAA/Mountain Administrative Support Center, 325 Broadway, Room GB109, Boulder, Colorado 80305-3328; DOC/NOAA/Western Administrative Support Center, Operations, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, Washington 98115-6349; and DOC/NOAA/Central Administrative Support Center, Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Room 1737, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.” and insert “NOAA Workforce Management Office, UNSEC Client Services Division, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; NOAA Workforce Management Office, NOS/NMAO Client Services Division, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby Street, Room 839, Norfolk, Virginia 23510; NOAA Workforce Management Office, NWS Client Services Division, Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Room 1737, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; NOAA Workforce Management Office, OAR/NESDIS Client Services Division, 325 Broadway, Room GB109, Boulder, Colorado 80305-3328; and NOAA Workforce Management Office, NMFS Client Services Division, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, Washington 98115-6349.”
Under location g., after “For employees of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office of Human Resources, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce,” delete “Suite 707, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202.” and insert “550 Elizabeth Lane, ETH04A85, Arlington, Virginia 22314.”
Under location h., after “For employees of Office of Inspector General, Human Resources Management Division,” delete “Room 7713,” and insert “Room 7711,”.
After “Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) records; Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) records; Automated Notification System records, and Employee Emergency Call Center records.” and add “; Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace Program records.”
After “DAO 210-110,” add “; Executive Order 12564; Public Law 100-71, dated July 11, 1987.”
After “(15) A record in this system of records may be disclosed to Senior State Department officials at U.S. Embassies, including the Ambassador, Deputy Chief of Mission, Administrative Counselor and Human Resource Officers, for matters relating to employment or security issues pertaining to Department of Commerce employees working in U.S. Embassies or facilities overseas.” add “(16) A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the U.S. Coast Guard for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wage marine employees for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace Program. (17) A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Transportation for employees in transportation positions for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and 49 CFR Part 40.”
Delete “For all other records at locations a and b, information may be obtained from Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Office of Executive Assistance Management, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;” and insert “For all other records at locations a and b, information may be
* Indicates that there are no changes to that paragraph of the notice.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 2006.
Attest:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 2006.
Attest:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the
The application to expand and reorganize FTZ 181 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project, and a sunset provision that would terminate authority for the additional parcel at Site 2 on December 31, 2011, unless the parcel is activated during that time period pursuant to 19 CFR Part 146 of the CBP regulations.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 2006.
Attest:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
1. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR § 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign status fabric admitted to the subzone;
2. No activity under FTZ procedures shall be permitted that would result in a change in textile quota category, country of origin, and/or alter applicable U.S. quota/visa requirements; and,
3. All FTZ activity shall be subject to Section 146.63(d) of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection regulations (19 CFR Part 146).
Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 2006.
Attest:
The Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC), which advises the Secretary of Commerce on deemed export licensing policy, will meet on January 22, 2007 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and again on January 23, 2007 from 8 a.m. to noon. The DEAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that was established under the auspices of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The meeting location will be in Santa Clara, CA, with exact details to be announced in a subsequent
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (“FMTCs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on July 10, 2006. The period of review (“POR”) is June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below.
December 11, 2006.
Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4243 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.
On July 10, 2006, the Department published its preliminary results.
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213.
The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
a. Lawn furniture;
b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”;
c. Side tables;
d. Child-sized tables;
e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36” high and matching stools; and,
f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28” to 36” wide by 48” to 96” long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set.
2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;
b. Lawn furniture;
c. Stools;
d. Chairs with arms; and
e. Child-sized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0010, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China,” (December 1, 2006) (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for Feili and New-Tec. See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1-15.
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005:
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. For Feili and New-Tec, we divided the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer by the total entered value of the sales to each importer to calculate ad valorem assessment rates. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each importer's entries during the POR.
Where an importer-specific
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of FMTCs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by Section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) As the final weight-averaged margins for New-Tec and Feili are less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) both covering the period of review (“POR”) of November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
The Department initiated an administrative review of 34
On June 20, 2006, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to nineteen companies: Chengshun, Shanghai LJ, Tianshan, Xi'an, Anqiu Friend, Clipper, H&T, Huaiyang, Yun Feng, Hongyu, Sanshan, Qingdao Saturn, Qufu Dongbao, Dongyue, Shandong Jining, Fanhui, Dexing, Yisheng and Harmoni. In addition, the Department published a notice of intent to rescind the review in part with respect to two additional companies: Weifang Shennong and Jinan Yipin. The Department is preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Weifang Shennong and Jinan Yipin (see “Preliminary Partial Rescissions of Administrative Reviews” section below).
Therefore, this review covers fifteen
As a result, we preliminarily determine that fifteen (five new shipper review companies and ten administrative review companies)
December 11, 2006.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
On November 16, 1994, the Department published in the
On October 3, 2005, we received a request for a new shipper review of Qingdao Camel. On November 2, 2005, we received a request for a new shipper review of QXF. On November 17, 2005, we received a request for a new shipper review of XuZhou Simple. On November 29, 2005, we received a request for a new shipper review of Qingdao Saturn. On November 30, 2005, we received a request for a new shipper review of Longtai.
On November 15, 2005, we received a request from Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Ever-Best”) for an administrative review. On November 30, 2006, we received a request from Petitioners for an administrative review of 34 companies.
On December 22, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of a review for fresh garlic from the PRC, covering the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
On February 13, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the five companies participating in the new shipper review. On February 24, 2006, the Department issued a memorandum on respondent selection for the administrative review.
The Department subsequently issued supplemental questionnaires to all companies under review between March 2006 and August 2006.
On April 28, 2006, the Department aligned the statutory time lines of this administrative review and all but one of the new shipper reviews.
On June 14, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the preliminary results time limits of this administrative review and new shipper reviews to October 2, 2006.
On August 31, 2006, September 12, 2006, October 19, 2006, and November 2, 2006, Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments related, in part, to the valuation of the intermediate factor of production, fresh garlic bulbs. On August 31, 2006, October 31, 2006, and November 7, 2006, Linshu, Shanyang Freezing, Sunny and Trans-High (collectively, “LSST”) provided their own comments on this factor and also provided comments on Petitioners' submissions. Likewise, on September 8, 2006, and October 30, 2006, Dongyun provided comments on Petitioners' submissions with respect to the valuation of fresh garlic bulbs.
On March 20, 2006, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review on four companies: Chengshun, Shanghai LJ, Tianshan, and Xi'an. On May 30, 2006, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review on sixteen additional companies: Anqiu Friend, Clipper, H&T, Huaiyang, Yun Feng, Hongyu, Sanshan, Pizhou, Qingdao Saturn, Qufu Dongbao, Dongyue, Shandong Jining, Fanhui, Dexing,Yisheng and Harmoni. On May 30, 2006, Harmoni withdrew its own request for an administrative review. Therefore, because Petitioners' and Harmoni's requests were timely, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we rescinded this review with respect to Chengshun, Shanghai LJ, Tianshan, Xi'an, Anqiu Friend, Clipper, H&T, Huaiyang, Yun Feng, Hongyu, Sanshan, Qingdao Saturn, Qufu Dongbao, Dongyue, Shandong Jining, Fanhui, Dexing,Yisheng and Harmoni.
On January 17, 2006, Weifang Shennong notified the Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On January 27, 2006, Jinan Yipin notified the Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department reviewed CBP's garlic entry data from the POR, and found no evidence to contradict these statements of no entries or sales of subject merchandise by Weifang Shennong or Jinan Yipin into the United States during the POR.
As noted above, Petitioners requested an administrative review of Pizhou Guangda.
Ever-Rich claimed that it did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We conducted a data query of CBP entry information on subject merchandise which may have been exported by Ever-Rich. In addition, the Department conducted a verification of Ever-Rich's export sales as well as the sales from Ever-Rich's producer of subject merchandise, Pizhou Guangda, as stated above.
We reviewed certain entries of subject merchandise exported by Trans-High during the POR. Trans-High informed the Department that it believed that Chinese exporters and/or U.S. importers were improperly identifying Trans-High as the supplier/invoicing company on certain exports of subject merchandise for importation into the United States.
During the course of this review, the Department requested all of Trans-High's POR entry documentation from CBP. The Department reviewed the information contained within the CBP entry documents and the information provided by Trans-High in its questionnaire response. Based on the information submitted by Trans-High and the CBP entry documentation, we agree with Trans-High that certain entries were improperly classified as Trans-High shipments during the POR. For the Department's detailed analysis of the entry documentation in question and Trans-High's own information,
XuZhou Simple requested a new shipper review on November 15, 2005. On December 28, 2005, the Department initiated a new shipper review with respect to XuZhou Simple.
Additionally, Petitioners also requested an administrative review with respect to XuZhou Simple, which the Department initiated.
The products covered by this antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we conducted verifications of the sales and factors of production (“FOP”) for
Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority.
A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department.
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (
The Department considers the following
Throughout the course of this administrative review and new shipper reviews, the new shipper companies (Longtai, Qingdao Saturn, QXF, Qingdao Camel, XuZhou Simple) and the administrative review companies (Sunny, Trans-High, Shanyang Freezing, and Dongyun) have placed sufficient evidence on the record that
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC.
The Department conducted a separate rates analysis for (1) the new shipper companies under review: Longtai, Qingdao Saturn, QXF, Qingdao Camel, and XuZhou Simple; (2) the selected respondents chosen for an administrative review: Sunny, Trans-High, Shanyang Freezing, and Dongyun; and (3) the companies upon which an administrative review was requested but not chosen as a selected respondent: FHTK, Ever-Best, Hongda, Linshu Dading, and Ziyang.
The following new shipper review companies and administrative review selected respondents (Longtai, Qingdao Saturn, QXF, Qingdao Camel, XuZhou Simple, Sunny, Trans-High, Shanyang Freezing, and Dongyun) reported that they are limited-liability companies owned by private investors. Four of the non-selected respondents of this administrative review, Ziyang, Hongda, Linshu Dading, and Ever-Best, also reported that they are limited-liability companies owned by private investors. However, one non-selected respondent in this administrative review, FHTK, reported that it is wholly owned by foreign entities. Therefore, an additional separate-rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether FHTK's export activities are independent from government control.
These companies have all asserted the following: (1) there is no government participation in setting export prices; (2) sales managers and authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts; (3) they do not have to notify any government authorities of management selections; (4) there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue; (5) each is responsible for financing its own losses. The questionnaire responses of the new shipper companies (Longtai, Qingdao Saturn, QXF, Qingdao Camel, XuZhou Simple), the selected respondents of the administrative review (Sunny, Trans-High, Shanyang Freezing, and Dongyun) and the non-selected respondents of the administrative review (Ever-Best, Hongda, Linshu Dading, and Ziyang) do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the information on the record, we found no information indicating the existence of government control. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Longtai, Qingdao Saturn, QXF, Qingdao Camel, XuZhou Simple, Sunny, Trans-High, Shanyang Freezing, Dongyun, FHTK, Ever-Best, Hongda, Linshu Dading, and Ziyang have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOPs”), valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in
As discussed in the “Separate Rates” section, the Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all previous antidumping proceedings. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment. Accordingly, we treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate country.
The Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review and a new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), provides that, if an interested party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{ for information, notifies }the Department{ that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if: (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.”
For these preliminary results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for Qingdao Camel's reported labor and electricity usage. In addition, we have determined that facts available is appropriate for Qingdao Camel's reported distances between the individual factor supplier and Qingdao Camel's producer, Jinxiang County Lufeng Agriculture Product Material Co., Ltd. (“Lufeng”) in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Finally, we have also determined that in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate for Qingdao Camel's unreported consumption of mesh bags.
In these preliminary results, because Lufeng was unable to provide the requested supporting documentation concerning the actual number of labor hours used to process and pack the subject merchandise, we applied facts available to Lufeng's usage of processing and packing labor pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
In Qingdao Camel's original section D questionnaire response dated April 4, 2006, Lufeng stated that it records the labor time and the processed and packed product quantity of garlic it produced in the pay bills. The Department issued two supplemental questionnaires requesting Lufeng to provide the actual labor hours usage for processing and packing. In its first section D supplemental response, Lufeng provided certain labor worksheets but none of the worksheets recorded the actual labor hours used for processing and packing the subject merchandise.
Because Lufeng could not provide the requested information in the form or manner requested concerning processing and packing labor, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we found it appropriate to apply facts available to Lufeng's consumption of processing and packing labor.
As stated above, Lufeng could not provide the consumption of processing and packing labor in the form or manner that the Department requested. The Department provided Lufeng with additional opportunities to submit the requested information. However, Lufeng still did not do so. The Department cannot rely on Lufeng's submitted information for processing and packing labor to derive an accurate dumping margin. It is the Department's practice to calculate the dumping margin based on the actual processing and packing labor hours worked.
In these preliminary results, because Lufeng could not provide the requested supporting documentation concerning its usage of electricity during the packing stage (“packing electricity”), we applied facts available to Lufeng's consumption of packing electricity pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Lufeng did not provide any explanation or supporting documents concerning its usage of packing electricity in its original Section D questionnaire response dated April 4, 2006. In its May 1, 2006, supplemental response, Lufeng noted that its packing electricity is an estimated figure but it did not provide any supporting documents.
Because Lufeng could not provide the requested information in the form or manner requested concerning packing electricity, we found it appropriate to apply facts available to Lufeng's consumption of packing electricity in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
As stated above, Lufeng could not provide the packing electricity consumption in the form or manner that the Department requested. The Department provided Lufeng with additional opportunities to submit the requested information. However, Lufeng still did not do so. The Department cannot rely on Lufeng's submitted information for packing electricity to derive an accurate dumping margin. It is the Department's practice to calculate the dumping margin based on the actual packing electricity.
In these preliminary results, because Lufeng could not provide the requested supporting documentation concerning its supplier distance at verification, we applied facts available to Lufeng's supplier distance pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
Lufeng provided its suppliers' information in Exhibit 7 of Qingdao Camel's May 1, 2006 submission. At verification, we requested that Lufeng provide information to support its reported supplier distances, but Lufeng did not provide such information and therefore, it cannot be verified.
In these preliminary results, because Lufeng withheld information concerning mesh bags used to pack the subject merchandise, we applied facts available to Lufeng's usage of mesh bags pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
Lufeng did not report mesh bags consumption in Qingdao Camel's three submissions of FOP data dated April 4, 2006, May 1, 2006, and July 19, 2006, respectively. At verification, we discovered that Lufeng did use mesh bags to pack the subject merchandise.
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.”
In this instance, Lufeng failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's repeated requests for information for all four factors discussed above: labor for processing and packing, packing electricity, supplier distances, and mesh bags. Lufeng reported consumption figures in the factors of production database for three of these four factors. However, it was only at verification that it became clear that the numbers Lufeng provided in its response for these factors had no basis in documentary evidence of actual consumption and moreover, that a previously unreported factor of production existed. Lufeng was given
As partial AFA for labor, electricity, and mesh bags, we averaged the top three usage ratios of each of the three inputs, reported by other respondents subject to this administrative review and new shipper reviews, and applied that average usage ratio to Lufeng's reported consumption of labor, electricity, and mesh bags.
With respect to Lufeng's suppliers distance, we are applying Lufeng's reported sigma distance (distance from plant to port) for all of Lufeng's applicable factors.
Notably, all of the information used as partial AFA with respect to Lufeng's calculations are derived from other reviewed respondents' information on the record and, therefore, the requirements involving secondary information of section 776(c) of the Act do not apply in this case.
For these preliminary results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C)&(D) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for QXF.
In selecting from among facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, an adverse inference is warranted when the Department has determined that a respondent has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” Section 776(b) of the Act goes on to note that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation under this title; (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under section 753, or (4) any other information on the record.
Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.”
As discussed below, we determine that, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, QXF failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, and that the application of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted. The Department finds that QXF failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not respond accurately to the Department's questions on such basic information as payment received for its POR sale, affiliations, and production data. QXF could have complied with the Department's request to respond accurately to the Department's initial questionnaire, requests for supplemental information, and questions asked at verification. In numerous cases, it did not. Instead it provided conflicting answers, inaccurate responses, or simply withheld information altogether.
For example, the Department's original questionnaire on page D1 requested that QXF contact the official in charge should it have questions concerning the reporting of factors of production.
Similarly, QXF withheld information concerning its affiliations. During verification, QXF stated that it had no affiliations other than the ones reported in its questionnaire responses. However, during the course of verification the Department discovered a business license for another company. When the team questioned QXF about this other
In light of the sheer volume of missing, contradictory, or withheld information from the record by QXF, the Department has determined that there is a “pattern of behavior” by QXF that warrants an application of adverse inferences in this case.
QXF consistently failed to provide the Department with truthful and/or complete responses during the new shipper review and the application of total AFA in this case is therefore appropriate because it should not be rewarded by “obtaining a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated fully.”
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.”
The information used in calculating this margin was based on “best information available” from the LTFV investigation. This rate is the current PRC-wide rate. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in the current review. Accordingly, we determine that this rate has relevance. As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we have determined that the selected rate of 376.67 percent, the highest rates from any segment of this proceeding (
As mentioned in the “Summary” section above, the Department initiated an administrative review with respect to Qingyuan. Subsequently, on January 6, 2006, and January 13, 2006, respectively, the Department made two requests for Qingyuan's quantity and value information, which the Department never received. Qingyuan did not submit comments during the course of the review regarding its status in this proceeding. As such, we find it appropriate to apply facts available to Qingyuan in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. Moreover, we find that Qingyuan did not cooperate to the best of its ability and therefore, adverse facts available is appropriate. As Qingyuan did not provide the information necessary to conduct a separate rates analysis, we also consider Qingyuan as part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, an adverse inference is appropriate to the PRC-wide entity (including Qingyuan) in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide the requested information but also to provide a full explanation as to why it cannot provide the information and suggest alternative forms in which it is able to submit the information. Because Qingyuan did not establish its entitlement to a separate rate and failed to provide requested information, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, it is appropriate to base the PRC-wide margin in these reviews on facts available.
Section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use as AFA information derived in the LTFV investigation or any prior review. In selecting an AFA rate, where warranted, the Department's practice has been to assign respondents who fail to cooperate with the Department's requests for information the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV investigation or in any administrative review.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the export price (“EP”) for sales to the United States for Longtai, Qingdao Camel, Qingdao Saturn, XuZhou Simple, Trans-High, Sunny, Shanyang Freezing, and Dongyun because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of
The Department's general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to calculate NV using each of the FOPs that a respondent consumes in the production of a unit of the subject merchandise. There are circumstances, however, in which the Department will modify its standard FOP methodology, choosing to apply a surrogate value to an intermediate input instead of the individual FOPs used to produce that intermediate input. In some cases, a respondent may report factors used to produce an intermediate input that accounts for an insignificant share of total output. When the potential increase in accuracy to the overall calculation that results from valuing each of the FOPs is outweighed by the resources, time, and burden such an analysis would place on all parties to the proceeding, the Department has valued the intermediate input directly using a surrogate value.
In the
In the course of this review, the Department has requested and obtained a vast amount of detailed information from the respondents with respect to each company's garlic production practices. Based on our analysis of the information on the record and for the reasons outlined in the
Thus, in the preliminary results of review, in order to eliminate the distortions in our calculation of NV for all of the reasons identified above and described in the
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the intermediate product value and processing FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available surrogate values in India with the exception of the surrogate value for ocean freight, which we obtained from an international freight company. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. We calculated these freight costs based on the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the port in accordance with the decision in
In applying the intermediate input methodology, the Department sought foremost to identify the best available SV for the fresh garlic bulb input to production, as opposed to identifying a surrogate value for garlic seed. Therefore, we have valued the fresh garlic bulb using prices for the “super-A” grade garlic bulb in India, as published by Azadpur Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (“APMC”) in its “Market Information
To value fresh garlic bulb in the last administrative review, the Department used information from the Agricultural Marketing Information Network (“Agmarknet”) database. The database on the Agmarknet website contains daily prices from APMCs throughout India and has information on prices and varieties of garlic sold in India, but does not contain information on the grade/size of the bulb. In the last administrative review, the Department concluded that the “China” variety bulb, found in the Agmarknet database, is reflective of the larger bulb used by the Respondents in the production of subject merchandise.
The Department's practice when selecting the “best available information” for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are: publicly available, product-specific, representative of a broad market average, tax-exclusive and contemporaneous with the POR.
We note that the Bulletin is published for public distribution on each trading day (six days per week) and contains daily information on agricultural products sold at the APMC. In addition, the Bulletin is available electronically upon request from Azadpur APMC. Thus, we find that the Bulletin is publicly available information.
With respect to garlic prices, the Bulletin contains count size-specific data such as the grade of the bulb and prices (minimum, maximum and modal) in rupees of the various grades of garlic. As we have explained in past cases, this is extremely important data for purposes of our analysis, as Respondents' garlic bulb products/inputs are, on average, over 40mm in diameter, and most Indian garlic is not that large. “Super-A” garlic, however, is defined to be that size. Thus, the Department finds that the “super-A” garlic pricing information in the Bulletin to be more specific to the input in question than the Agmarknet data because it provides a surrogate value based on a quantifiable bulb size (grade) with which to value the intermediate product.
As noted above, Azadpur APMC is a “National Distribution Centre” for agricultural products. A careful examination of the Bulletin shows that agricultural products from all over India are sold at Azadpur APMC, which claims to be the largest fruit and vegetable market (by quantity) in the world. See Azadpur APMC's website
In selecting the best available and most appropriate surrogate value for the fresh garlic bulb, the Department considered all surrogate value comments submitted by Petitioners, LSST and Dongyun and have determined that certain adjustments are necessary.
With respect to contemporaneity, we note that the Azadpur APMC data is not contemporaneous with the POR. We note that the data points for “super-A” garlic in the Azadpur Bulletin started being recorded in May 2006. However, we are able to adjust the post-POR surrogate value of “super-A” garlic by deflating the data points. The Department's methodology for deflation is described in detail in the
With respect to the markets within India used by the Department, it is the Department's practice to use country-wide data instead of regional data when the former is available.
In addition, the Department used a simple average, as suggested by the Respondents in their submissions, rather than a weighted average of all “super-A” garlic prices to calculate the fresh bulb surrogate value, because daily arrivals are not recorded on a size basis and we were unable to determine the weight of the “super-A” garlic versus the weight of the other grades of garlic.
Finally, the Department deducted a six percent market fee imposed by Azadpur AMPC on sales made at the APMC, as indicated on the APMC website.
The Department has determined that the following preliminary dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005:
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review and new shipper reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.
For Weifang Shennong and Jinan Yipin, companies for which this review is preliminarily rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). As discussed above, we are also preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to Ever-Rich because we found no evidence that it made shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, despite the CBP entry data analyzed by the Department, which showed possible exports by Ever-Rich. Therefore, for entries of subject merchandise exported by Ever-Rich, antidumping duties shall be assessed at the PRC-Wide rate required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with Department practice and 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these new shipper reviews for all shipments of subject merchandise from Qingdao Camel, Qingdao Saturn, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise produced and exported by XuZhou Simple, produced and exported by Longtai, produced and exported by QXF, produced by Lufeng and exported by Qingdao Camel, or produced by Taifeng and exported by Qingdao Saturn, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in these final results of reviews; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Qingdao Camel but not manufactured by Lufeng and for subject merchandise exported by Qingdao Saturn but not manufactured
Further, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Dongyun, Sunny, Trans-High, and Shanyang Freezing, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in these final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, FHTK, Ever-Best, Hongda, Linshu Dading Ziyang and Ever-Rich, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, including Qingyuan, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review, the new shipper reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(g), 351.214(h) and 352.221(b)(4) of the Department's regulations.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from Nucor Corporation, Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (Mittal) and United States Steel Corporation (USS) (collectively, petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Netherlands. This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise from Corus Staal BV (Corus Staal). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands in the United States have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities.
December 11, 2006.
David Cordell or Robert James, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On November 29, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands.
On November 1, 2005, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on November 30, 2005, petitioners requested that we conduct an administrative review of sales of the subject merchandise made by Corus Staal, a producer and exporter of the subject merchandise.
On January 3, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Corus Staal. Corus Staal submitted its response to sections A B, C, D, and E of the questionnaire on February 9, 2006.
On January 23, 2006, USS requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed during the period of review by the respondent Corus Staal. On January 24, 2006, the Department issued a letter inviting Corus Staal to submit on the record evidence that unaffiliated purchasers will pay the antidumping duties that may be assessed on entries during the period of review. On February 9, 2006, Corus Staal submitted its response to the Department's letter.
On January 31, 2006, Corus Staal requested the Department to excuse certain affiliates, Corus Vlietjonge BV, Ijzerleeuw BV and Multisteel, from reporting home market sales. On August 1, 2006, the Department granted Corus's
On April 7, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A, B and C questionnaire, to which Corus Staal responded on April 28, 2006. On May 4, 2006, the Department issued a section D supplemental questionnaire. Corus Staal responded on May 25, 2006. On June 16, USS submitted comments on Corus Staal's April 7, 2006, response. On June 27, 2006, the Department issued a second section A, B and C supplemental questionnaire and on June 28, 2006 the Department issued a section D supplemental. Corus Staal filed a response to these supplementals on July 14, 2006. On June 30, 2006, Corus Staal filed quantity and value reconciliations as requested in section A of the questionnaire and on July 25, 2006, Corus Staal filed its 2005 annual report. On September 8, 2006 and September 27, 2006, Corus filed its responses to the Department's third and fourth section D supplemental questionnaires, which the Department had issued on August 14, 2006, and September 6, 2006. Mittal provided comments on the section D supplemental questionnaires on June 29, August 11, August 18, September 27 and October 20, 2006.
On March 6, 2006, Mittal filed comments concerning Corus's utilization of simplified reporting for the merchandise further manufactured by its U.S. affiliates, Thomas Steel Strip (Thomas Steel) and Hille & Mueller USA, Inc. (HMU). On March 13, 2006, Corus responded to Mittal's request that the Department require Corus to supply a section E response for these sales. On March 22, March 27, April 7, April 28, May 12, May 16, May 17, May 22 and May 24, 2006, both Mittal and Corus made numerous submissions on this topic, each of which is reviewed in the Department's June 15, 2006, memorandum to preliminarily accept Corus's simplified reporting for Thomas Steel and HMU in this segment of the proceeding.
On October 20, 2006, Mittal submitted comments in response to Corus's fourth supplemental section D questionnaire. Mittal asked the Department to obtain additional information from Corus on the steel produced by the conventional hot-rolling plant (HRM) and steel produced in a Direct Sheet Plant (DSP). The Department addresses this issue in section E of the NV section of this Notice: Price-to-Price Comparisons, below. On November 13, 2006, Mittal submitted pre-preliminary determination comments to which Corus Staal responded on November 21, 2006.
Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on July 12, 2006, we published in the
The POR is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 millimeters (mm) and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
During the POR, Corus Staal sold the foreign like product to several affiliated resellers in the home market. These include Namascor BV (Namascor), a service center wholly owned by Corus Staal, and Laura Metaal Holding BV (Laura), a manufacturer and service center in which Corus Staal's parent company, Corus Nederland BV, has a shareholder interest. For purposes of our analysis, we utilized Namascor's and Laura's sales to unaffiliated customers and, where Laura consumed the subject merchandise purchased from Corus Staal in its manufacturing operations, we utilized Corus Staal's sales to Laura. In addition, Corus Staal sold the foreign like product to affiliated companies Corus Vlietjonge BV (Vlietjonge),
In the U.S. market, Corus Staal sold subject merchandise to Thomas Steel, a further manufacturer of battery-quality hot band steel, who in turn also shipped a small portion of this material to HMU, after further processing the product. Thomas Steel is wholly owned by Corus USA Inc., which in turn is wholly owned by Corus Staal's parent company, Corus Nederland BV. Claiming the value-added in the United States by Thomas Steel exceeded substantially the value of the subject merchandise as imported, Corus Staal utilized the “simplified reporting” option for the merchandise further processed by Thomas Steel.
Pursuant to section 772(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), when the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we will determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other subject merchandise, if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
On January 23, 2006, USS requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by the respondent. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. Because Corus Staal BV sold
In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by the respondent during the POR, we presume the duties will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence (
Corus Staal claims it has negotiated terms with its customers intending to pass dumping duties on to its customers. Corus, however, concedes that “these provisions do not allow for the retroactive collection of any additional antidumping duties ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise.”
Commerce's interpretation of subsection 1675(a)(4) appears to be a reasonable, common-sense solution to what Congress attempted to accomplish with its enactment. This conclusion is inherent from the statute's focus-upon duty absorption in the foreign producer or exporter-and therefore even if the meaning of “affiliate” were clear, and resort to legislative history unnecessary, to find that the statute does not address the circumstance of the foreign producer or exporter itself acting as the importer of record would result in an apparent absurdity.
Therefore, because Corus Staal did not rebut the duty absorption presumption with evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Corus Staal on all U.S. sales made through its importer of record, namely Corus Staal.
To determine whether sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent, covered by the descriptions in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands.
We have relied on the following 11 criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: whether painted or not, quality, carbon content level, yield strength, thickness, width, whether coil or cut-to-length sheet, whether temper rolled or not, whether pickled or not, whether mill or trimmed edge, and whether the steel is rolled with or without patterns in relief.
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's, January 3, 2006, questionnaire.
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).” Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d).”
Corus Staal reported each of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as EP transactions. However, after reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined, as we did in the 2002-2003 review, that certain of Corus Staal's reported EP transactions are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales occurred after importation. This determination is consistent with section 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
During the POR, Corus Staal executed all agreements with U.S. customers, and amendments related to those agreements, in the Netherlands.
However, in the case of “just in time” (JIT) sales to one unaffiliated customer, the invoice was issued after the subject merchandise had entered the United States. In its response to the Department's section C questionnaire, dated February 9, 2006, Corus Staal stated that due to a cancellation by the JIT customer, Corus found it necessary to sell certain steel to another customer in the United States. In exhibit C-26 of its April 28, 2006, supplemental response, Corus provided both the
Additionally, we do not agree with Corus Staal's claim that the relevant frame agreement governs the sale between the JIT customer and Corus, because, as the aforementioned JIT sale demonstrates, an order was cancelled after importation and sold to another customer in the United States. Furthermore, in this review, Corus Staal has maintained it is upon invoicing “that the final quantity, price and product sold are ultimately determined.”
Thus, Corus Staal's responses indicate that the invoice date is the appropriate date to use in determining when a sale or agreement of sale first occurs, as changes often do occur between the frame agreement and the date of invoice.
Furthermore, the CIT recently decided this issue in the second administrative review of this proceeding when it held that:
turning to the application of the law to the facts of this case, Commerce properly applied the definition of 'sold (or agreed to be sold)' to the case at hand. As the material terms of the sale or agreement to sell were not fixed until the final invoice, Commerce could properly conclude that the final invoices determined when a sale or agreement to sell first occurred. It follows that the sale or agreement to sell occurred after importation in the United States. Therefore, Commerce correctly classified the JIT transactions as CEP transactions pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§ 1677a(a) and (b).
In accordance with the CIT's recent decision in
With respect to the remainder of Corus Staal's reported EP sales (
For those sales which we are classifying as EP transactions, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on the packed, delivered, duty paid prices for export to end users and service centers in the U.S. market. We adjusted gross unit price for billing errors, freight revenue, and early payment discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses.
For CEP sales, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered, duty paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where applicable, we made adjustments to gross unit price for billing errors, freight revenue, and early payment discounts. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit, warranty,
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP/CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting price of the comparison sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer, after adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP/CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of
In implementing these principles in the instant review, we obtained information from Corus Staal about the marketing stages involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Corus Staal and the level to which each selling activity was performed for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for U.S. CEP sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price after any adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act.
In the home market, Corus Staal reported two channels of distribution (sales by Corus Staal and sales through its affiliated service centers Namascor and Laura) and three customer categories (end users, steel service centers, and trading companies).
In the U.S. market, Corus Staal reported a single channel of distribution for its sales of subject merchandise during the POR. For EP sales made directly to U.S. customers, Corus Staal reported two customer categories, end users and steel service centers.
As noted in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” section of this notice, we have preliminarily determined that certain of Corus Staal's reported EP transactions (
As to these Corus Staal sales to customers in the United States which we have reclassified as CEP transactions, we considered whether such sales were made at the same level of trade. Comparing the selling activities performed and services offered by Corus Staal on its CEP sales to customers in the United States to those activities performed on its home market sales, we found there to be few differences in the selling functions performed by Corus Staal on its sales to customers in the United States and those performed for sales in the home market. For example, on sales to both home market customers and to U.S. customers, Corus Staal provided similar strategic and economic planning, freight and delivery services, technical/warranty assistance, research and development, and sales logistics support.
Finally, for those sales which we are continuing to classify as EP, we compared the selling activities performed and services offered by Corus Staal on its sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States to those activities performed on its home market sales, we found there to be few differences in the selling functions performed by Corus Staal. Thus, we find that Corus Staal's home market sales and sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, no LOT adjustment is necessary.
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (
Corus Staal reported sales in the home market to affiliated resellers and end-users. Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded sales of certain products made at prices below the cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation of this review,
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of Corus Staal's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data reported by Corus Staal.
For a list of the product characteristics considered in our analysis, see the section “Product Comparisons” above. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of billing adjustments, freight revenue, certain minor processing expenses, discounts and rebates, and any applicable movement charges.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities and whether such sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Our cost test for Corus Staal revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for other models sold by Corus Staal, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.
While in this preliminary determination no sales are compared to CV, we nevertheless calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We based CV on the sum of the Corus Staal's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV and weight-averaged the CVs reported for identical products produced in both the conventional hot-rolling mill and direct sheet plant as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses.
We relied on our model match criteria in order to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product based on the reported physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the following characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. These characteristics are: painted, quality, carbon, yield strength, thickness, width, cut-to-length vs coil, temper rolled, pickled, edge trim, and patterns in relief.
As indicated earlier, on October 20, 2006, Mittal asked the Department to obtain additional information from Corus on products produced by the DSP mill and hot-rolled mill to ensure that the Department calculates the most accurate margin possible. However, the Department has already addressed this issue in the 2001-2002 administrative review of this case where the Department determined “because the information on the record does not establish sufficient differences in physical characteristics between conventional hot-rolled mill and DSP products, we have not made any changes to our model match criteria for these final results.”
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length. We adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, freight revenue, interest revenue and tolling revenues, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise (i.e., difmer) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and credit insurance. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a home market match of
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act.
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005, to be as follows:
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of the administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the Commission) that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The Department is publishing notice of the continuation of these antidumping duty orders.
December 11, 2006.
Deborah L. Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657, 482-0649, or (202) 482-1391, respectively.
On January 3, 2006, the Department initiated and the Commission instituted
On October 31, 2006, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
For purposes of these orders, the product covered is certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (butt-weld fittings). Butt-weld pipe fittings are under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or unfinished. The product encompasses all grades of stainless steel and “commodity” and “specialty” fittings. Specifically excluded from the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings made from any material other than stainless steel.
The butt-weld fittings subject to these orders are generally designated under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, or its foreign equivalents (
These orders do not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, A743/743M, and A744/A744M.
The butt-weld fittings subject to these orders are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise from all manufacturers and exporters of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The effective date of continuation of these orders is the date of publication in the
These sunset reviews and this continuation notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Department of Defense.
Notice of closed advisory committee meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Software Assurance will meet the closed session on
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the health of the U.S. space industrial base and determine if there is any adverse impact from export controls, in particular, on the health of lower-tier contractors; anticipate future space requirements and the shape of the space industrial base required to achieve the anticipated capabilities; and recommend improvements to current policies and processes, where applicable, while also identifying policies and processes that can shape the space industrial base to deliver future capabilities.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
Due to scheduling and work burden difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting.
Department of Defense.
Notice of closed advisory committee meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on National Guard and Reserves in the GWOT will meet in closed session on January 3-4, 2006; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the consequences for force structure, morale, and mission capability of deployments of members of the National Guard and the Reserves in the course of the global war on terrorism that are lengthy, frequent, or both.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
Department of Defense.
Notice of closed advisory committee meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills will meet in closed session on December 11, 2006; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess all aspects of nuclear deterrent skills as well as the progress Department of Energy (DoE) has made since the publication of the Chiles Commission report.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
Due to scheduling difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting.
Defense Logistics Agency, DOD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to alter a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on January 10, 2007 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045.
The Defense Logistics Agency systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on December 1, 2006, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Time and Attendance Labor Exception Subsystem of APCAPS (November 16, 2004, 69 FR 67112).
Delete “DLA-KM” from entry.
Delete entry and replace with “DLA Civilian Time and Attendance, Project and Workload Records.”
Delete entry and replace with “Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221, and each Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Field Activity. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to DLA's compilation of systems of records notices.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records maintained include individual's name, Social Security Number, User ID, citizenship; pay; educational level; emergency data; employee's status, position, supervisor, timekeeper, project manager, system access level, accounting codes, organization and office location, e-mail address and office telephone numbers; telework location and phone number, rate, leave balances; work and shift schedule, project and workload records, regular and overtime work hours and leave hours, time and attendance records (timesheet), and information on temporary duty and special assignments.”
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. Chapter 61, Hours of Work; Chapter 53, Pay Rates and Systems; Chapter 57, Travel, Transportation, and Subsistence; and Chapter 63, Leave; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 31 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Accounting and Collection; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are used to prepare time and attendance records, to record employee pay rates and status, including overtime, the use of leave, and work absences; to track workload, project activity for analysis and reporting purposes; for statistical reporting on leave and overtime use/usage patterns, number of employees Teleworking, etc.; and to answer employee queries on leave, overtime, and pay.
Information from this system of records is provided to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service for the purpose of issuing payroll to DLA civilian employees.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are retrieved by employee's name, Social Security Number or User ID.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to computerized data is restricted by passwords, which are changed periodically. Access to record is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the records in the performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. All individuals granted access to this system of records are required to have taken Information Assurance and Privacy Act training.”
Delete entry and replace with “Initialed Leave Application Files (LAF) are destroyed at end of following pay period, un-initialed LAFs are destroyed after GAO audit or when 3 years old, whichever is sooner. Time and Attendance Source Records and Input Records are destroyed after GAO audit or when 6 years old, whichever is sooner. Leave Records are destroyed when 3 years old. Payroll system reports and data used for personnel management purposes are destroyed when 2 years old.
Project and workload records—disposition pending. Until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the retention, treat “project and workload records” as permanent.”
Delete entry and replace with “EAGLE Project Manager, J6-UT Tailored Logistics Division, Defense Logistics Agency, 2001 Mission Drive, Suite 2, New Cumberland, PA 17070-5004. For a list of system managers at the DLA Field Activities, write to the EAGLE Project Manager.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or to the Privacy Act Office in the DLA Field Activity where employed. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to DLA's compilation of systems of records notices.
Inquiry should contain the subject individual's full name, User ID, return mailing address, and organizational location of employee.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or to the Privacy Act Office in the DLA Field Activity where employed. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to DLA's compilation of systems of records notices.
Inquiry should contain the subject individual's full name, User ID, return mailing address, and organizational location of employee.”
Delete entry and replace with “The DLA rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 323, or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.”
Delete entry and replace with “Subject individuals, supervisors, timekeepers, leave slips, payroll office and payroll records, including automated payroll systems.”
DLA Civilian Time and Attendance, Project and Workload Records.
Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221, and each Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Field Activity. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to DLA's compilation of systems of records notices.
DLA civilian employees and certain former DLA civilian employees.
Records maintained include individual's name, Social Security Number, User ID, citizenship; pay; educational level; emergency data; employee's status, position, supervisor, timekeeper, project manager, system access level, accounting codes, organization and office location, e-mail address and office telephone numbers; telework location and phone number, rate, leave balances; work and shift schedule, project and workload records, regular and overtime work hours and leave hours, time and attendance records (timesheet), and information on temporary duty and special assignments.
5 U.S.C. Chapter 61, Hours of Work; Chapter 53, Pay Rates and Systems; Chapter 57, Travel, Transportation, and Subsistence; and Chapter 63, Leave; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 31 U.S.C., Chapter 35, Accounting and Collection; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
Records are used to prepare time and attendance records, to record employee pay rates and status, including overtime, the use of leave, and work absences; to track workload, project activity for analysis and reporting purposes; for statistical reporting on leave and overtime use/usage patterns, number of employees Teleworking, etc.; and to answer employee queries on leave, overtime, and pay.
Information from this system of records is provided to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service for the purpose of issuing payroll to DLA civilian employees.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of DLA's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Records are stored on paper and on electronic storage media.
Records are retrieved by employee's name, Social Security Number or User ID.
Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to computerized data is restricted by passwords, which are changed periodically. Access to record is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the records in the performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. All individuals granted access to this system of records are required to have Information Assurance and Privacy Act training.
Initialed Leave Application Files (LAF) are destroyed at end of following pay period, un-initialed LAFs are destroyed after GAO audit or when 3 years old, whichever is sooner. Time and Attendance Source Records and Input Records are destroyed after GAO audit or when 6 years old, whichever is sooner. Leave Records are destroyed when 3 years old. Payroll system reports and data used for personnel management purposes are destroyed when 2 years old.
Project and workload records—disposition pending. Until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the retention, treat “project and workload records” as permanent.
EAGLE Project Manager, J6-UT Tailored Logistics Division, Defense Logistics Agency, 2001 Mission Drive, Suite 2, New Cumberland, PA 17070-5004. For a list of system managers at the DLA Field Activities, write to the EAGLE Project Manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or to the Privacy Act Office in the DLA Field Activity where employed. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to DLA's compilation of systems of records notices.
Inquiry should contain the subject individual's full name, User ID, return mailing address, and organizational location of employee.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or to the Privacy Act Office in the DLA Field Activity where employed. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to DLA's compilation of systems of records notices.
Inquiry should contain the subject individual's full name, User ID, return mailing address, and organizational location of employee.
The DLA rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 323, or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
Subject individuals, supervisors, timekeepers, leave slips, payroll office and payroll records, including automated payroll systems.
None.
Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice to add a system of records.
The Defense Intelligence Agency is proposing to add a system of records to its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The proposed action will be effective on January 10, 2007 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Freedom of Information Office, Defense Intelligence Agency (DAN-1A), 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.
The Defense Intelligence Agency systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 1, 2006, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Case Records
Civilian employees, military assignees, retirees, and family members who are actively utilizing EAP services.
Records maintained include individual's name, gender, marital status, birth date, questionnaires, medical treatment, correspondence with personal physicians and practitioners, results of psychological assessments and interviews, psychiatric examination results and related reports, re-disclosure forms, and referral information.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; E.O. 12564, Drug-free Federal Workplace; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To facilitate and record treatment on employees seeking counseling or referral services. To assist with planning and coordinating health care; to compile statistical data, conduct research, aid in preventive health programs, teach, evaluate care rendered, and determine professional certification and facility accreditation.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Defense as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Defense Intelligence Agency's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Records of identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment of any client/patient, irrespective of whether or when he/she ceases to be a client/patient, maintained in connection with the performance of any alcohol or drug abuse prevention and treatment function conducted, requested, or directly of indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States, shall, except as provided herein, be confidential and be disclosed only for the purposes and under the circumstances expressly authorized in 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2. These statutes take precedence over the Privacy Act of 1974 in regard to accessibility of such records except to the individual to whom the report pertains. The “Blanket Routine Uses” that appear the beginning of DIA's compilation of systems of records notices do not apply to these records.
Paper records are in file folders in locked cabinets.
By last name.
Secured, limited access offices and locked file cabinets. Records are accessible only to authorized personnel and must be returned by the end of day. Files are maintained in locked cabinets unless they are in use. Original signature release forms are required to disclose any information to a third party.
Disposition pending. No records will be destroyed until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the retention and disposal of the records.
Chief, Office of Employee Assistance HCH-EAP, Defense Intelligence Agency 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington DC 20340-0001.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the DIA Privacy Office (DAN-1C), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington DC 20340-5100.
Individual should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number.
Individuals seeking access to information about them contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the DIA Privacy Official, Defense Intelligence Agency (DAN-1C), 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individual should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number.
The Defense Intelligence Agency's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DIA Regulation 12-12 “Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy Program”; 32 CFR part 319—Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy Program; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Primary sources for records are EAP counselors, the patient and/or their family members, and employee supervisors.
None.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to amend systems of records.
The Department of the Air Force is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on January 10, 2007 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800.
Ms. Novella Hill at (703) 588-7855.
The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Cadet Records (November 23, 2005, 70 FR 70792).
Replace entry with ‘Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.’
Cadet Records.
Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL 36112-6110, and portions pertaining to each Reserve Officer Training Corps detachment located at respective detachments.
Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices.
Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) cadets applying for, or enrolled or previously enrolled within the past three years, in the professional officers course or the general military course, if the latter participation was in a scholarship status.
Applications for enrollment in the Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps (AFROTC) courses, applications for the AFROTC scholarship program substantiation records of qualification for the courses or programs, acceptances of applications, awards of scholarships, records attesting to medical, academic, moral and civic qualifications, records recording progress in flying instruction, Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) application data, academic curriculum and leadership training, counseling summaries, records of disenrollment from other officer candidate training; records of separation or discharge from officer candidate training; records of separation or discharge of prior service members; financial record data, certification of degree requirements; Regular appointment nomination data, records tendering and accepting commissions, records verifying national agency checks or background investigation, records required or proffered during investigations for disenrollment, legal opinions, letters of recommendations, corroboration by civil authorities, awards, citations; and allied papers.
Field training administration records consist of student performance reports.
10 U.S.C. Chapter 33, Original Appointments of Regular Officers in Grades Above Warrant Officers; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 103, Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps; E.O. 9397 (SSN); Air Force Instruction 36-2011, Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps (AFROTC); and Air Force Officer Accession and Training School Instruction 36-2011, Administration of Senior Air Force Cadets.
Used for recruiting and qualifying a candidate for acceptance as an AFROTC cadet, continuing the cadet in the program and awarding an Air Force commission.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of record system notices apply to this system.
Maintained in file folders, note books/binders, in computers and on computer output products.
Retrieved by name, Social Security Number and detachment number.
Records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in performance of their official duties and by authorized personnel who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Records are stored in locked rooms and cabinets. Those in computer storage devices are protected by computer system software.
Records at unit of assignment are destroyed one year after acceptance of commission or one year after disenrollment. Records at HQ AFROTC for disenrolled cadets are destroyed after three years. Computer records are destroyed when no longer needed. Records are destroyed by tearing into pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating or burning. Computer records are destroyed by erasing, deleting or overwriting.
Director of Senior Program, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL 36112-6110, and Commander of appropriate AFROTC detachment.
Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information on them should address inquiries to the AFROTC Detachment Commander at location of assignment. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices.
Request for information involving an investigation for disenrollment should be addressed to Commander, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL 36112-6110. Requests should include full name and SSN.
Individuals seeking to access records about themselves contained in this system should address requests to the
Request for information involving an investigation for disenrollment should be addressed to Commander, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL 36112-6110. Requests should include full name and SSN.
The Air Force rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Sources of records in the system are educational institutions, secondary and higher learning; government agencies; civilian authorities; financial institutions; previous employers; individual recommendations, interviewing officers; and civilian medical authorities.
Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to Alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Army is proposing to alter a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on January 10, 2007 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AHRC-PDD-FPZ, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905.
Mr. Robert Dickerson at (703) 428-6513.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 1, 2006, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Standard Installation/Division Personnel System (SIDPERS) (January 6, 2004, 69 FR 790).
Add to entry “family members.”
Add to entry “home address”.
Add to the National Guard and Reserve Component entry: “from the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) database,.”
Standard Installation/Division Personnel System (SIDPERS).
National Guard records are located at the Army National Guard Readiness Center, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Reserve Component records are located at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200.
Regular Army records are located at the Army Information Processing Centers located in Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150; Huntsville, AL 35898-7340; Rock Island, IL 61299-7210; and St. Louis, MO 63120-1798.
All active duty Army personnel, personnel attached from National Guard and/or Army reserve members of the Army National Guard, individuals currently assigned to a U.S. Army Reserve unit, and family members.
Name, Social Security Number, home address, sex, race, citizenship, status, religious denomination, marital status, number of dependents, date of birth, physical profile, ethnic group, grade and date of rank, term of service for enlisted personnel, security clearance, service agreement for non-regular officers, promotion data and dates, special pay and bonus, unit of assignment and identification code, military occupational specialty, civilian occupation, additional skill identifiers, civilian and military education levels, languages, military qualification, assignment eligibility, availability and termination date thereof, security status, suspension of favorable personnel action indicator, Privacy Act disputed record indicator, and similar relevant data.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 600-8-23, Standard Installation/Division Personnel System Database Management; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To support personnel management decisions concerning the selection, distribution and utilization of all personnel in military duties, strength accounting and manpower management, promotions, demotions, transfers, and other personnel actions essential to unit readiness; to identify and fulfill training needs; and to support automated interfaces with authorized information systems for pay, mobilization, and other statistical reports.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Magnetic tapes, discs, microfiche, punched cards, and computer printouts.
By Name, Social Security Number, or other individually identifying characteristics.
Access to data and data storage is controlled and accessible only to authorized personnel and authorized personnel with password capability for the electronic media access.
Records are maintained one year in records holding area or current file area then retired to National Personnel Records Center. Maintained there for 75 years then destroyed.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the appropriate address below:
National Guard individuals should address inquiries to the National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Readiness Center, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Reserve individuals should address inquiries to the Commander of the Army Headquarters in which the unit is located.
Regular Army individuals should address inquiries to their local Commander.
All individuals should furnish full name, service identification number, current address and telephone number, signature, and specific information concerning the event or incident that will assist in locating the record.
Personal visits may be made. Individual must furnish proof of identity.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the appropriate address below:
National Guard individuals should address inquiries to the National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Readiness Center, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Reserve individuals should address inquiries to the Commander of the Army Headquarters in which the unit is located.
Regular Army individuals should address inquiries to their local Commander.
All individuals should furnish full name, service identification number, current address and telephone number, signature, and specific information concerning the event or incident that will assist in locating the record.
Personal visits may be made. Individual must furnish proof of identity.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
None.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Ekips Technologies, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use in electro-optical devices in the United States and certain foreign countries, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 6,593,212: METHOD FOR MAKING ELECTRO-OPTICAL DEVICES USING A HYDROGEN ION SPLITTING TECHNIQUE, Navy Case No. 79,639 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this License must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than December 26, 2006.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, e-mail:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to add systems of records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The proposed action will be effective on January 10, 2007 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Chief of Naval
Mrs. Doris Lama at (202) 685-325-6545.
The Department of the Navy's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Department of Defense Voluntary Education System (DODVES).
Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support, 6490 Saufley Field Road, Pensacola, FL 32509-5243.
Current and former DoD and Coast Guard personnel, including Reserves and National Guard.
Name; Social Security Number (SSN); date of birth; home and work e-mail addresses; phone numbers (home, office, cell, and fax); educational costs/tuition assistance; test scores; professional qualification and skills; training courses completed; certifications received; level of education; military awards received; duty assignment; and language skills.
10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters, Marine Corps; DoD 1322.8, Voluntary Education Programs for Military Personnel; DoD 1322.25, Voluntary Education Program; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To provide voluntary educational programs to current and former military service members. The system will maintain educational records and track educational costs of those current and former service members who participate in the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) program; assist military personnel in making successful transitions to second careers in teaching; provide referral assistance and placement services to departing, qualified, military personnel for schools that serve low-income families throughout the U.S.; provide information to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and to local DoD fiscal and accounting personnel for the purpose of financial management and funds disbursement; and promote partnerships between civilian and military communities through agreements with commercial testing agencies, colleges, universities, and educational associations.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To United States Coast Guard Voluntary Education Program Office for the purpose of education counseling, financial management, and funds disbursement.
To DoD contractors who conduct examinations and provide the results back to DANTES, and to DoD contract counselors who provide educational counseling support to the Service member.
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Navy's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper and on electronic storage media.
Name and last four digits of Social Security Number.
Access is limited to those individuals who require the records for the performance of their official duties. Paper records are maintained in buildings with controlled or monitored access. During non-duty hours, records are secured in locked or guarded buildings, locked offices, or guarded cabinets. Password controlled system, file, and element access based on predefined need-to-know.
Records are destroyed two years after the individual completes the educational program.
Director, Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support, 6490 Saufley Field Road, Pensacola, FL 32509-5243.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support, 6490 Saufley Field Road, Pensacola, FL 32509-5243.
Individuals should submit a signed request that contains their full name and last 4 of their Social Security Number.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support, 6490 Saufley Field Road, Pensacola, FL 32509-5243.
Individuals should submit a signed request that contains their full name and last 4 of their Social Security Number.
The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individual; DoD contractors that administer exams; colleges/universities/educational institutions personnel, DFAS and DoD activities.
None.
Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement.
This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada.
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 325,443.8 kg of Natural UF6 (67.6% U), containing 220,000 kg of Uranium. This material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Port Hope Ontario, to Urenco Ltd., Alemlo, Netherlands to be enriched and returned to the United States for use as fuel in the nuclear power plants by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pismo Beach, CA. The material originally was exported to Canada pursuant to NRC Export License Number XSOU-8798. Urenco is authorized to receive nuclear material pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation.
In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.
For the Department of Energy.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability of proposed NPDES general permits for public comment.
Region 8 of EPA is hereby giving notice of its tentative determination to issue seven (7) NPDES general permits for storm water discharges from regulated industrial activities. The proposed general permits are applicable to Federal Facilities within the State of Colorado and to Indian country within the Region 8 states as listed below.
NPDES permit coverage is required for storm water discharges from industrial activities in accordance with final EPA regulations for Phase I (55 FR 48063, Nov. 16, 1990) and Phase II (64 FR 68722, Dec. 8, 1999) storm water discharges. Operators of regulated industrial activities as defined in federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) application and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to EPA to be covered under the general permit. Upon receipt of complete NOI and EPA approval of the SWPPP, operators will be authorized to discharge storm water from their industrial activities in accordance with the terms described in the permit. Those industries which have a direct discharge of process wastewater (non storm water) and/or whose storm water discharges are subject to Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) must obtain permit coverage for their storm water discharges under an individual permit.
In accordance with the draft general permit, operators of regulated industrial activities must implement storm water management controls which are designed to protect water quality and ensure that discharges from industrial activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Several storm water management controls are required by the permit and address good housekeeping, identification of potential pollutant sources, preventative maintenance, spill prevention and response, material handling/waste management, employee training, record keeping, erosion/sediment control, illicit discharges, visual inspections, and comprehensive facility inspections. Operators must submit a pollution prevention plan to the EPA which includes a site map and describes how the storm water management controls are being implemented at the specified location.
Public comments on this draft permit must be received or postmarked no later than January 10, 2007. A public hearing may be requested in writing (see 40 CFR 124.11) within the comment period concerning the proposed permit. EPA will hold a public hearing if on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in the draft permit exists (see 40 CFR 124.12). Within 120 days following notice of EPA's final decision for the general permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any interested person may appeal the permit in the Federal Court of Appeals in accordance with section 509(b)(1) of the CWA. Persons affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an individual permit as specified at 40 CFR
Public comments or requests for a public hearing should be sent to: Greg Davis (8P-W-WW); Attention: NPDES Permits; U.S. EPA, Region 8; 999 18th Street, Suite 200; Denver, CO 80202-2466. Public comments will also be accepted via electronic mail (E-mail) at
For a copy of the draft permit and Fact Sheet or for further information on the draft permit, contact either Greg Davis (303) 312-6314 (
When the final general permit is issued, it will be published by reference in the
The APA defines two broad categories of agency action—“rules” and “orders.” Its definition of “rule” encompasses “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency * * *” APA section 551(4). Its definition of “order” is residual: “a final disposition * * * of an agency in a matter other than rule making but including licensing.” APA section 551(6) (emphasis added). The APA defines “license” to “include * * * an agency permit * * *” APA section 551(8). The APA thus categorizes a permit as an order, which by the APA's definition is not a rule. Section 553 of the APA establishes “rule making” requirements. The APA defines “rule making” as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” APA section 551(5). By its terms, then, section 533 applies only to “rules” and not also to “orders,” which include permits.
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for a public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby giving notice that the State of Nebraska is revising its approved Public Water Supply Supervision Program under the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these program revisions.
This determination to approve the Nebraska program revision is made pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d)(3). This determination shall become final and effective on January 10, 2007, unless (1) a timely and appropriate request for a public hearing is received or (2) the Regional Administrator elects to hold a public hearing on his own motion. Any interested person, other than federal agencies, may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 7 address shown below by January 10, 2007. If a substantial request for a public hearing is made within the requested 30-day time frame, a public hearing will be held and a notice will be given in the
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) Name, address, and telephone number of the individual organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement about the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the signature of the individual making the request or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. Requests for Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Regulation and Licensure, Environmental Health
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, Drinking Water Management Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
Kenneth L. Deason, EPA Region 7, Drinking Water Management Branch, (913) 551-7585 or toll-free at 800-223-0425, or by e-mail at
Notice is hereby given that EPA has determined to approve an application by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services to incorporate the following EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: (1) Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Monitoring Rule (January 22, 2001, 66 FR 6975); (2) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (June 8, 2001, 66 FR 31086); (3) Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions (January 12, 2000, 65 FR 1950); (4) Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (January 14, 2002, 67 FR 1812); (5) Public Notification Rule (May 4, 2000, 65 FR 25982); (6) Radionuclides Rule (December 7, 2000, 65 FR 76708); and (7) Variance and Exemption Rule (August 14, 1998, 63 FR 43834). The application demonstrates that Nebraska has adopted drinking water regulations that satisfy the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA has determined that Nebraska's regulations are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations and that Nebraska continues to meet all requirements for primary enforcement responsibility as specified in 40 CFR 142.10.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for a public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby giving notice that the State of Kansas is revising its approved Public Water Supply Supervision Program under the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, the EPA intends to approve these program revisions.
This determination to approve the Kansas program revision is made pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d)(3). This determination shall become final and effective on January 10, 2007, unless (1) a timely and appropriate request for a public hearing is received or (2) the Regional Administrator elects to hold a public hearing on his own motion. Any interested person, other than Federal Agencies, may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below by January 10, 2007. If a substantial request for a public hearing is made within the requested thirty-day time frame, a public hearing will be held and a notice will be given in the
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the individual organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement on information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the signature of the individual making the request or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. Requests for Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency—Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Water, Public Water Supply Section, 1000 SW Jackson Street, Suite 420, Topeka, Kansas 66612-1367.
Environmental Protection Agency—Region 7, Water Wetlands and Pesticides Division, Drinking Water Management Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Neftali Hernandez-Santiago, Environmental Protection Agency—Region 7, Drinking Water Management Branch, (913) 551-7036, or by e-mail at
Notice is hereby given that the EPA has determined to approve an application by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to incorporate the following EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: (1) Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring (January 22, 2001, 66 FR 6975); (2) Consumer Confidence Reports Rule (August 19, 1998, 63 FR 44511); (3) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (June 8, 2001, 66 FR 31085); (4) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (December 16, 1998, 63 FR 69477); (5) Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions (January 12, 2000, 65 FR Page 1949); (6) Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (January 14, 2002, 67 FR 1811); (7) Public Notification Rule (May 4, 2000, 65 FR 25981); (8) Radionuclides Rule (December 7, 2000, 65 FR 76707); and (9) Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (December 16, 1998, 63 FR 69389). The application demonstrates that Kansas has adopted drinking water regulations which satisfy the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The EPA has determined that Kansas's regulations are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations and that Kansas continues to meet all requirements for primary enforcement responsibility.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on December 14, 2006, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:
• November 9, 2006 (Open)
• Bookletter on Farm Credit Bank and Association Appointed Directors
• FCSBA Quarterly Report
• Economic and Funding Approval Update
• OSMO Quarterly Report
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of charter renewal.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the purpose of this notice is to announce that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has renewed the charter for the “Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age.” (“Diversity Committee”) for a two-year period through December 5, 2008. The Diversity Committee is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
December 5, 2008.
A copy of the Charter is available from the Federal Communications Commission, Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Lisa M. Fowlkes, Designated Federal Officer for the Diversity Committee, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Room 7-C753, Washington, DC 20554. Telephone (202) 418-7452. E-mail:
The purpose of the Diversity Committee is to make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in the telecommunications and related industries. Issues or questions to be considered by the Committee will include, but are not limited to the following topic areas: (1) Financial issues, such as access to capital; (2) transactional transparency and related outreach; (3) career advancement; and (4) the impact of new and emerging technologies on diversity issues. In keeping with its advisory role, the duties of the Committee will be to provide guidance to the Commission on policies and practices that could increase the diversity of ownership and create opportunities for minorities and women to advance to managerial positions in the communications sector. The Committee will make reports and recommendations concerning the need for any guidelines, incentives, regulations or other policy approaches to promote diversity of participation in the communications sector. The Committee will also develop a description of best practices within the communications sector for promoting diversity of participation.
Cancellation of previously announced meetings: Tuesday, December 1, 2006, meeting closed to the public and Thursday, December 21, 2006, meeting open to the public.
Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 application also will 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 January 5, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 5, 2006.
10 a.m. (EST); December 18, 2006.
4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Open.
1. Approval of the minutes of the November 20, 2006 Board member meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
a. Monthly Performance Report.
b. Monthly Investment Report.
c. Legislative Report.
3. Participant Survey Update.
Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the updated OGE Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.
Daniel D. Dunning, Deputy Director for Administration and Information Management, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TDD: 202-208-9293; FAX: 202-482-9237.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and § 430.310 thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, in large measure from the ranks of other agencies. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of each OGE senior executive's performance by his or her supervisor, along with any recommendations in each instance to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. This notice updates the membership of OGE's SES Performance Review Board as it was last published at 70 FR 69763-69764 (November 17, 2005).
The following officials have been selected as regular members of the SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics:
Joseph E. Gangloff [Chair], Deputy Director for Agency Programs, Office of Government Ethics;
Susan E. Propper [Alternate Chair], Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel and Legal Policy, Office of Government Ethics;
Stephen Epstein, Director, Standards of Conduct Office, Department of Defense;
Rosalind A. Knapp, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Transportation;
Daniel L. Koffsky, Special Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice.
This notice amends Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), as follows: Chapter KA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, as last amended 66 FR 52627, 10/16/01, and Chapter KN, Office of Public Affairs, as last amended 63 FR 81-87, 01/02/98. This notice adds a new office, the Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. In addition, this notice notes the name change from the President's Committee on Mental Retardation (PCMR) to the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID). Lastly, this notice moves the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer and Office of Inspector General (OIG) hotline functions from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families to the Office of Public Affairs. The changes are as follows:
A. Delete KA.00 Mission in its entirety and replace with the following:
KA.00 Mission. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families (OAS) provides executive direction, leadership, and guidance for all ACF programs. OAS provides national leadership to develop and coordinate public and private initiatives for carrying out programs that promote permanency placement planning, family stability, and self-sufficiency. OAS advises the Secretary on issues affecting America's children and families, including Native Americans, persons with developmental disabilities, refugees, and legalized aliens. OAS provides leadership on human service issues and conducts emergency preparedness and response operations during a nationally declared emergency.
B. Delete KA.10 Organization in its entirety and replace with the following:
KA.10 Organization. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is headed by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families who reports directly to the Secretary and consists of:
C. Delete KA.20 Functions in its entirety and replace with the following:
KA.20 Functions. A. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families (KA): The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is responsible to the Secretary for carrying out ACF's mission and provides executive supervision of the major components of ACF. These responsibilities include providing executive leadership and direction to plan and coordinate ACF program activities to ensure their effectiveness, approving instructions, policies, publications, and grant awards issued by ACF, and representing ACF in relationships with governmental and non-governmental organizations. The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families also serves as the Director of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and signs official child support enforcement documents as the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary serves as an alter ego to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on program matters and acts in the absence of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
B. President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities Staff (KAD): The President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID) staff provides general staff support for a Presidential-level advisory body. It coordinates all meetings and Congressional hearing arrangements; provides such advice and assistance in the areas of intellectual disabilities as the President or the Secretary may request; prepares and issues an annual report to the President concerning intellectual disabilities and such additional reports or recommendations as the President may require or as PCPID may deem appropriate; and evaluates the national effort to prevent and ameliorate intellectual disabilities. It works with other Federal, State, local governments, and private-sector organizations to achieve Presidential goals vis-à-vis intellectual disabilities, and develops and disseminates information to increase public awareness of intellectual disabilities to reduce its incidence and to alleviate its effects. The staff supporting PCPID reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and External Affairs.
C. The Executive Secretariat Office (KAF): The Executive Secretariat Office (ExecSec) ensures that issues requiring the attention of the Assistant Secretary, Deputy Assistant Secretaries and/or executive staff are addressed on a timely and coordinated basis and facilitates decisions on matters requiring immediate action, including White House, Congressional, and Secretarial assignments. ExecSec serves as the ACF liaison with the HHS Executive Secretariat. ExecSec receives, assesses, and controls incoming correspondence and assignments to the appropriate ACF component(s) for response and action and provides assistance and advice to ACF staff on the development of responses to correspondence. ExecSec provides assistance to ACF staff on the use of the controlled correspondence system. ExecSec coordinates and/or prepares Congressional correspondence; and tracks development of periodic reports; and facilitates Departmental clearances.
D. The Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (KAG): The Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR) provides general staff support for the implementation and coordination of ACF program and human services emergency planning, preparedness, and response during nationally declared emergencies. OHSEPR oversees disaster assessment, response operations and asset-management protocols. OHSEPR coordinates with ACF Central and Regional Offices, ACF State- and local grantee-funded programs, ACF program partner organizations, and the Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness (OPHEP). OHSEPR coordinates, through the OPHEP, with the Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency on human services emergency planning as part of the National Emergency Plan. The staff supporting the OHSEPR report to the Director of OHSEPR who reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Delete KN.20 Functions, Paragraph A, in its entirety and replace with the following:
KN.20 Functions. A. Office of Director [63 FR 81-87, 01/02/98] provides leadership and direction to OPA in administering OPA's responsibilities. The Office provides direction and leadership in the areas of public relations policy and communications services. The Office serves as advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the areas of public affairs; provides advice on strategies and approaches to be used to improve public understanding of and access to ACF programs and policies; and coordinates and serves as ACF liaison with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. The Office serves as Regional Liaison on public affairs issues. The Deputy Director assists the Director in carrying out the responsibilities of the Office. The Office serves as the Freedom of Information Act Officer for ACF and coordinates hotline calls received by the Office of Inspector General relating to ACF operations and personnel.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Office of 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 to: Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development & Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Marina L. Myhre, (202) 708-3700, extension 5705 for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (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 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 to: Report Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Todd M. Richardson, (202) 708-3700, extension 5706, (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents.
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Dakotas Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.
A meeting will be held January 10 and 11, 2007, at the Holiday Inn, at I90 Exit 14, Spearfish, SD 57783, beginning at 1 p.m. The public comment period will begin at 8 a.m. on Thursday, January 11, 2007.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in North and South Dakota. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. The Council will hear updates to Recreation Resource Advisory Committee roles, Sage Grouse Conservation, and upcoming resource management planning efforts.
Marian Atkins, Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, 310 Roundup St., Belle Fourche, South Dakota, 605-892-7000, or Lonny Bagley, Field Manager, North Dakota Field Office, 99 23rd Ave., W. Suite A, Dickinson, North Dakota, 701-227-7700.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held January 9 & 10, 2007, at the Bureau of Land Management's Lewistown Field Office, 920 NE Main Street, in Lewistown, Montana. The January 9 session will begin at 10 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period. This meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 6 p.m. The January 10 meeting will begin at 8 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period. This meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 3 p.m.
This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Montana. At this meeting the council will discuss/act upon:
The minutes of their preceding meeting;
A review of the RAC charter;
An orientation session for new and current members;
An update concerning the Missouri River Breaks National Monument RMP
Orientation for serving as a recreation resource advisory committee;
A review of Undaunted Stewardship programs;
A review of livestock grazing regulations;
A presentation concerning the Kipp Business Plan;
Information concerning Revised Statute 2477;
An oil and gas activity briefing;
An update on the Valley Wind Farm;
A report concerning the initial Malta RMP scoping comments;
And administrative details.
All RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
June Bailey, Lewistown Field Manager, Lewistown Field Office, P.O. Box 1160, Lewistown, Montana 59457 406/538-1900.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332, and Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR 1506.6, that the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), will prepare an ORV Management Plan/EIS. The ORV Management Plan/EIS will be used to guide the management and control of ORVs at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (the Seashore), North Carolina, for approximately the next 10 to 15 years. It will also form the basis for a special regulation that would regulate ORV use at the Seashore. The ORV Management Plan/EIS will assess potential environmental impacts associated with a range of reasonable alternatives for managing ORV impacts on park resources such as threatened and endangered species, soils, wetlands, wildlife, and cultural resources. Socioeconomic impacts and effects on visitor experience and public safety will also be analyzed.
To determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the ORV Management Plan/EIS and to identify significant issues related to the ORV management at the Seashore, the NPS will conduct public scoping meetings in North Carolina at Buxton, Kill Devil Hills, and Raleigh, North Carolina and in Washington, DC. Representatives of the NPS will be available to discuss issues, resource concerns, and the planning process at each of the public meetings. When public scoping meetings have been scheduled, their locations, dates, and times will be published in local newspapers and posted on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site at
Written comments or requests for information should be addressed to Mike Murray, Superintendent, Outer Banks Group, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Comments may also be hand delivered to Mike Murray, Superintendent, Outer Banks Group, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina. In addition comments may be entered on-line in the NPS PEPC Web site at
Mike Murray, Superintendent, at 252-473-2111, extension 148. E-mail
The ORV use on the Seashore beaches predates establishment of the park in 1953. The ORVs (mostly 4-wheel drive pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles) are used to provide vehicular access onto the Seashore beaches for recreational and commercial purposes, including surf fishing, surfing, sunbathing, swimming, bird watching, scenic driving, commercial fishing, etc. Ranger counts of ORVs on the beach have reached as high as 2,200 a day on summer holiday weekends.
Executive Order 11644, issued in 1972 and amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, states that Federal agencies allowing ORV use must designate the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of ORVs may be permitted, and areas in which the use of ORVs may not be permitted. Agency regulations to authorize ORV use shall provide that designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Executive Order 11644 was issued in response to the widespread and rapidly increasing use of ORV on the public lands—“often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.” Therefore, in accordance with the Executive Order, the purpose of this action is to develop an ORV Management Plan/EIS that considers alternative management strategies consistent with the park's enabling legislation, and park mandates for preservation of resources and values.
An ORV Management Plan is needed because lack of an approved plan over time has led to inconsistent management of ORV use. As the popularity of the Seashore continues to grow, conflicts between visitors who
The ORV Management Plan/EIS will cover lands administered by the NPS on Bodie, Hatteras, and Ocracoke Islands on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The 5,880 acre Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), located at the northern end of Hatteras Island, is part of the Seashore, but is administered for refuge purposes by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd
During initial internal scoping the NPS interdisciplinary team identified a number of draft objectives for the ORV Management Plan/EIS, including:
Because the management of ORVs at the Seashore has been controversial, the NPS has arranged through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution for a neutral facilitation team to assess the feasibility of using negotiated rulemaking to reach a consensus agreement among interested parties that may be used as a basis for an NPS ORV special regulation. Based on the feasibility assessment, the NPS is developing a Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee which would be published separately in the
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The draft and final ORV Management Plan/EIS will be made available to all known interested parties and appropriate agencies. Full public participation by Federal, State, and local agencies as well as other concerned organizations and private citizens is invited throughout the preparation process of this document.
The responsible official for this ORV Management Plan/EIS is Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before November 25, 2006.
Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by December 26, 2006.
To assist in the preservation of this historic property the comment period has been shortened to five (5) days:
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 46) terminating the above-captioned enforcement proceeding based on a settlement agreement.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3061. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On August 20, 2004, the Commission terminated the above-captioned investigation and issued a limited exclusion order (“the Order”) which denies entry to certain display controllers manufactured, inter alia, by respondent MStar Semiconductor, Inc. (“MStar”) and covered by claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 33-36, 38, and 39 of U.S. Patent 5,739,867. On April 24, 2006, complainant Genesis Microchip (Delaware) Inc. (“Genesis”) filed a complaint for enforcement of the Commission's Order under Commission Rule 210.75. Genesis asserted that respondent MStar had violated the Commission's Order by importing its allegedly infringing Tsunami display controllers into the United States.
On June 23, 2006, the Commission issued a “Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding.” See 71 Fed. Reg. 37096 (June 29, 2006). On October 25, 2006, complainant Genesis and respondent MStar filed a joint motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding on the basis of a settlement agreement pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21. See 19 CFR. 210.21. On November 6, 2006, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion.
On November 8, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 46) granting the motion. No party petitioned for review of Order No. 46.
The Commission has determined not to review Order No. 46.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on January 3, 2006 (71 FR 138) and determined on April 10, 2006 that it would conduct full reviews (71 FR 23947, April 25, 2006). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on December 6, 2006. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3892 (December 2006), entitled
By order of the Commission.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure Report.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 9, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Clark R. Fleming, Field Division Counsel, El Paso Intelligence Center, 11339 SSG Sims Blvd., El Paso, TX 79908.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
On November 18, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Orlando Wholesale, L.L.C., of Orlando, Florida (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of List I chemicals on the ground that its registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. 823(h) and 824(a).
The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent was proposing to distribute List I chemical products containing pseudoephedrine, a precursor chemical which is used to manufacture methamphetamine, to convenience stores in the Orlando area and that methamphetamine manufacturers often obtain the chemical from convenience stores. See Show Cause Order at 1-2. The Show Cause Order alleged that during DEA's pre-
On November 25, 2005, the Government attempted to serve the Show Cause Order on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of its proposed registered location, 9500 Satellite Blvd., #230, Orlando, FL. The mailing was returned with a notation that Respondent's forwarding address was 1167 Doss Ave., Orlando, FL. Thereafter, on December 30, 2005, two DEA DIs went to the latter address and personally served Respondent's owner, Mr. Shakil Isani, with the Show Cause Order. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded. Because (1) more than thirty days have passed since Respondent's receipt of the Show Cause Order, and (2) no request for a hearing has been received, I conclude that Respondent has waived its right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based on relevant material found in the investigative file and make the following findings.
Pseudoephedrine is a List I chemical that, while having a therapeutic use, is easily extracted from lawful products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). As noted in numerous DEA orders, “methamphetamine is an extremely potent central nervous system stimulant.” Sujak Distributors, 71 FR 50102, 50103 (2006); A-1 Distribution Wholesale, 70 FR 28573 (2005). Methamphetamine is highly addictive; its abuse has destroyed lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used to make the drug, its manufacture creates serious environmental harms. David M. Starr, 71 FR 39367 (2006).
Respondent is a Florida corporation which has been in business since October 2003. On March 22, 2004, Respondent applied for a registration as a distributor of List I chemicals and gave as the address of its proposed registered location: 9500 Satellite Blvd., # 230, Orlando, FL. On June 15, 2004, two DEA DIs conducted a pre-registration investigation at this address. At some point thereafter, Respondent changed its address to 1167 Doss Avenue, Orlando. Respondent did not, however, notify DEA.
During the pre-registration investigation, the DIs met with Respondent's owner, Mr. Shakil Isani. Mr. Isani told the DIs that Respondent is a wholesale distributor of some 700 different items to approximately 109 convenience stores in the greater Orlando area. Mr. Isani further advised the DIs that he is the owner and only officer of Respondent. When the DIs asked Mr. Isani for a copy of Respondent's Articles of Incorporation, Mr. Isani stated that three other individuals were listed as being managing members of the firm but that he planned on removing them. One of these individuals had previously come to the attention of DEA because he was operating a business (on behalf of his brother who had been convicted of several federal criminal offenses and was then serving a sentence of incarceration) which distributed List I chemicals without a valid DEA registration.
The DIs asked Mr. Isani to provide them with documentation regarding the removal of the other members of his firm. The DIs also asked Mr. Isani for personal data such as date, place of birth, and social security numbers for the other members. Mr. Isani agreed to provide the information. Mr. Isani has not, however, provided the information.
The DIs also asked Mr. Isani about his immigration status. Mr. Isani told the DIs that he was in the country under a work permit but that he did not have the documentation on him. The DIs then asked Mr. Isani to provide them with documentation of his status. Subsequently, the DIs conducted a check of Mr. Isani's status and determined that he was not legally in the United States and appeared to be subject to removal proceedings. The check, however, also showed that Mr. Isani had applied for an adjustment of status to become a resident alien. According to the investigative file, Mr. Isani has not provided the DIs with updated information on his status.
During the on-site inspection, the DIs also asked Mr. Isani to provide copies of his business licenses. Again, Mr.Isani has not provided any of the information that the DIs requested.
Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute List I chemicals is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:
(1) Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.
“These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” Joy's Ideas, 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for registration should be denied. See, e.g., Starr, 71 FR at 39367; Energy Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.”
Here, I conclude that an analysis of each factor is unnecessary and that Respondent's application should be denied for two reasons. First, Respondent's owner has failed to submit necessary information regarding three issues: (1) His business licenses, (2) his immigration status, and (3) the role of persons listed as managing members of the firm including one individual who has previously come to the attention of DEA. Second, Respondent changed its address—without notifying DEA—and after the on-site inspection was conducted.
DEA regulations expressly provide that “[t]he Administrator may require an applicant to submit such documents * * * relevant to the application as [she] deems necessary to determine whether the application should be granted.” 21 CFR 1309.35. The information sought by the DIs regarding Respondent's business licenses and its owner's immigration status was reasonably necessary to evaluate Respondent's compliance with applicable laws. See 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2). In light of Respondent's failure to produce this information (as well as the information contained in the
Respondent's change of address provides further reason to deny its application. Under the Controlled Substances Act, a registration is location specific. See 21 U.S.C. 822(e) (“A separate registration shall be required at each principal place of business * * * where the applicant * * * distributes * * * list I chemicals.”). Respondent applied for a registration at 9500 Satellite Blvd., # 230, Orlando, Fl. It was at this location that the pre-registration investigation was conducted and the adequacy of Respondent's security controls was evaluated. See 21 CFR 1309.71(b). Respondent's change of its location after DEA conducted the pre-registration inspection renders moot the information obtained regarding its security measures and its application for registration at its prior place of business. Furthermore, Respondent has not submitted an application for its new location. Because Respondent applied to distribute List I chemicals from the Satellite Blvd. location and it is no longer in business at that location, I conclude that granting its application for a registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that the application of Respondent Orlando Wholesale L.L.C., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of List I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective January 10, 2007.
On November 23, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Taby Enterprises of Osceola, Inc., of Plant City, Florida (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of the List I chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine on the ground that its registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.
The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent was proposing to distribute List I chemical products to convenience stores, which are non-traditional retailers of these products. See Show Cause Order at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent had no experience in the distribution of List I chemical products. See id. The Show Cause Order also alleged that Respondent provided a customer list which he represented as including his “established customers.” Id. The Show Cause Order alleged, however, that when DEA investigators contacted these establishments, several “were out of business” and only a small number of them “expressed any interest in acquiring listed chemical products from” Respondent. Id. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that Respondent had “not provided complete and accurate information to DEA,” and that DEA therefore could not determine whether Respondent would comply with federal law and protect against the diversion of listed chemical products. Id.
The Show Cause Order was served by certified mail, return receipt requested. On December 3, 2005, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Show Cause Order as evidenced by the signed Return Receipt Card. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded. Because (1) More than thirty days have passed since Respondent's receipt of the Show Cause Order, and (2) no request for a hearing has been received, I conclude that Respondent has waived its right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based on relevant material found in the investigative file and make the following findings.
Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are List I chemicals that, while having therapeutic uses, are easily extracted from lawful products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). As noted in numerous DEA orders, “methamphetamine is an extremely potent central nervous system stimulant.” Sujak Distributors, 71 FR 50102, 50103 (2006); A-1 Distribution Wholesale, 70 FR 28573 (2005). Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used to make the drug, its manufacture creates serious environmental harms. David M. Starr, 71 FR 39367 (2006).
Respondent is a Florida corporation which is located at 1912 Jim Redman Parkway, Plant City, Fl., 33566. Respondent has been in business since December 2002; its President and Owner is Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt.
On May 2, 2005, Respondent applied for a registration as a distributor of the List I chemicals pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Thereafter, on June 17, 2005, two DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) went to Respondent's proposed registered location to conduct a pre-registration investigation. The DIs inspected Respondent's facility and interviewed Respondent's owner.
The DIs determined that Respondent sells sundry items including tobacco products, lighters, various over-the-counter drugs, batteries and small toys, etc., to local convenience stores and gas stations. Respondent also operates a retail store at the same location.
During the interview, Respondent informed the DIs that he wanted to expand his product line to include cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine such as Advil, Nyquil/Dayquil, Tylenol Sinus, Tylenol Cold, Contact and Tylenol Flu. Respondent also told the DIs that he intended to sell Mini-Thins Two Way and other ephedrine products. Mr. Butt further stated that he would be the only individual who would handle List I chemical products and that he would purchase the products from F & S Distributing, Inc., and Price Master Corp.
According to the investigative file, Mr. Butt has no prior experience in the wholesale distribution of List I chemicals. Moreover, Mr. Butt told the DIs that he does not verify the identity of his customers by asking them to present an ID.
The DIs also explained to Mr. Butt DEA's recordkeeping requirements. The DIs then sought and obtained a list of the firm's established customers; the DIs subsequently attempted to visit eleven of them. Only two of these establishments expressed any interest in buying List I products from Respondent. As for the other nine stores visited by the DIs, two of the stores could not be found at the address given by Mr. Butt. At another two stores, the owner/manager could not recall whether he had ever purchased merchandise from Respondent. At a third location, the owner stated that he had never purchased any merchandise from Respondent. At three other stores, the owners told the DIs that they had only purchased a limited amount of items from Respondent and would not consider buying any List I products from it as they already had other suppliers. Finally, at another store, the owner had never heard of Respondent.
Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute List I chemicals is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:
(1) Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.
“These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” Joy's Ideas, 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for registration should be denied. See, e.g., Starr, 71 FR at 39367; Energy Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.”
The investigative file establishes that Respondent does not have in place effective controls against diversion. According to the file, Respondent does not verify the identity of his customers. Verifying the identity of purchasers of List I chemicals is essential to ensuring that these products are being bought to meet legitimate consumer demand and not for use in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. See 21 CFR 1309.71(b)(8) (requiring the assessment of “[t]he adequacy of the registrant's or applicant's systems for monitoring the receipt, distribution, and disposition of List I chemicals in its operations”). Respondent's practice of failing to identify its customers thus raises a substantial risk that if it was granted a registration, its products would be diverted.
In support of this finding, I further note the discrepancies between the customer information Respondent provided and what the DIs found during the customer verifications. This is not a case where there are slight variances, but rather material differences between the information provided by an applicant and that discovered by DEA investigators. While Respondent represented that the list included his established customers, four of the stores did not appear to have had a business relationship with Respondent, and even among those that did have a relationship, most of them had no interest in purchasing List I chemical products from it. Finally, some of the stores could not be found at the address provided by Respondent. This information does not inspire confidence that the products Respondent would handle would remain within the legitimate chain of distribution. I thus conclude that this factor establishes that Respondent's application should be denied.
The file does not contain any evidence that Respondent has failed to comply with applicable Federal, State or local laws. The file also does not contain any evidence that Respondent, or its owner, has been convicted of any drug related criminal offense.
According to the investigative file, neither Respondent, nor its owner, has any experience in the wholesale distribution of List I chemical products. Numerous DEA final orders have made clear that because of the potential for diversion, an applicant's (and its controlling person's) lack of experience in distributing List I chemicals is a factor which weighs heavily against granting an application for a registration. Tri-County Bait Distributors, 71 FR 52160, 52613 (2006); Jay Enterprises, 70 FR 24620, 24621 (2005); ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 11652, 11653 (2004).
Numerous DEA orders recognize that convenience stores and gas-stations constitute the non-traditional retail market for legitimate consumers of products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
Moreover, during clandestine lab seizures, DEA has frequently found high count List I chemical products, thus indicating that these are the preferred products for illicit methamphetamine manufacturers.
Significantly, all of Respondent's proposed customers participate in the non-traditional market for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products. DEA orders recognize that there is a substantial risk of diversion of List I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine when these products are sold by non-traditional retailers.
Because of the methamphetamine epidemic's devastating impact on communities and families throughout the country, DEA has repeatedly denied an application when an applicant proposed to sell into the non-traditional market and analysis of one of the other statutory factors supports the conclusion that granting the application would create an unacceptable risk of diversion. Thus, in Xtreme Enterprises, 67 FR 76195, 76197 (2002), my predecessor denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of criminal record, compliance with the law and willingness to upgrade her security system are far outweighed by her lack of experience with selling List I chemicals and the fact that she intends to sell ephedrine almost exclusively in the gray market.” More recently, I denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of a criminal record and any intent to comply with the law and regulations are far outweighed by his lack of experience and the company's intent to sell ephedrine and pseudoephedrine exclusively to the gray market.” Jay Enterprises, 70 FR at 24621. Accord Prachi Enterprises, 69 FR 69407, 69409 (2004).
Here, Respondent clearly lacks effective controls against diversion, has no experience in the wholesale distribution of List I chemical products, and yet intends to distribute these products to non-traditional retailers, a market in which the risk of diversion is substantial. Given these findings, it is indisputable that granting Respondent's application would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h).
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that the application of Respondent Taby Enterprises of Osceola, Inc., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of List I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective January 10, 2007.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Justice.
Notice of aggregate production quotas for 2007.
This notice establishes initial 2007 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D., Chief, Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Telephone: (202) 307-7183.
Section 306 of the CSA Title 21 United States Code section 826 (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 0.100. The Administrator, in turn, has redelegated this function to the Deputy Administrator, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104.
The 2007 aggregate production quotas represent those quantities of controlled substances that may be produced in the United States in 2007 to provide adequate supplies of each substance for: The estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States; lawful export requirements; and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks (21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 21 CFR 1303.11). These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.
On August 29, 2006, a notice of the proposed initial 2007 aggregate production quotas for certain controlled substances in schedules I and II was published in the
Five responses were received within the published comment period resulting in comments on a total of 25 schedule I and II controlled substances. The responses commented that the proposed aggregate production quotas for alfentanil, aminorex, cocaine, codeine (for conversion), dihydrocodeine, ecgonine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, methadone intermediate, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, morphine (for conversion), nabilone, noroxymorphone (for conversion), oxycodone, oxycodone (for conversion), oxymorphone, oxymorphone (for conversion), remifentanil, sufentanil, tetrahydrocannabinols and thebaine were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.
DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the relevant 2006 manufacturing quotas, current 2006 sales and inventories, 2007 export requirements, additional applications received, and research and product development requirements. Based on this information, the DEA has adjusted the initial aggregate production quotas for alfentanil, aminorex, amobarbital, codeine (for conversion), dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, gamma hydroxybutyric acid, ibogaine, hydrocodone, metazocine, nabilone, noroxymorphone (for conversion), oxycodone, oxycodone (for conversion), oxymorphone, oxymorphone (for conversion), remifentanil, sufentanil,
Regarding cocaine, ecgonine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, methadone intermediate, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, morphine (for conversion) and tetrahydrocannabinols, the DEA has determined that the proposed initial 2007 aggregate production quotas are sufficient to meet the current 2007 estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States.
Pursuant to 21 CFR Part 1303, the Deputy Administrator of the DEA will, in 2007, adjust aggregate production quotas and individual manufacturing quotas allocated for the year based upon 2006 year-end inventory and actual 2006 disposition data supplied by quota recipients for each basic class of schedule I or II controlled substance.
Therefore, under the authority vested in the Attorney General by Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826), and delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100, and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy Administrator hereby orders that the 2007 initial aggregate production quotas for the following controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, be established as follows:
The Deputy Administrator further orders that aggregate production quotas for all other schedules I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 be established at zero.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that notices of aggregate production quotas are not subject to centralized review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement
The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this action will have no significant impact upon small entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.
This action will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $118,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This action is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This action will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor, Internal Revenue Service, Treasury, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of Supplemental Proposed Forms Revisions.
This document contains a proposal to make changes required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report filed for employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The proposed changes supplement proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report published, prior to the enactment of the PPA, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (Agencies) in the
Written comments must be received by the Department of Labor on or before January 10, 2007.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically to
Comments will be available to the public at
Ann Junkins, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), (202) 283-0722, for questions relating to Schedules SB, MB, and Schedule R, as well as general questions relating to reporting under the Internal Revenue Code; Amy Viener, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), (202) 326-4080 for questions relating to Schedules SB and MB, and Michael Packard, PBGC, 202 326-4080 for questions relating to the Schedule R, as well as questions relating to the general reporting requirements under Title IV of ERISA; Elizabeth A. Goodman or Yolanda Wartenberg, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693-8523, for questions relating to the Short Form 5500-SF, as well as general reporting requirements under Title I of ERISA. The telephone numbers referenced above are not toll-free numbers.
To enable the public to better evaluate the proposed changes, the Department is making available on its Web site at
Sections 101 and 104 of Title I and section 4065 of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, sections 6058(a) and 6059(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), as amended, and the regulations issued under those sections, impose certain annual reporting and filing obligations on pension and welfare benefit plans, as
The Form 5500 Annual Return/Report is the principal source of information and data available to the Department, the IRS, and the PBGC (Agencies) concerning the operations, funding, and investments of more than 800,000 pension and welfare benefit plans. These plans cover an estimated 150 million participants and hold an estimated $4.3 trillion in assets. Accordingly, the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report necessarily constitutes an integral part of each Agency's enforcement, research, and policy formulation programs, and is a source of information and data for use by other federal agencies, Congress, and the private sector in assessing employee benefit, tax, and economic trends and policies. The Form 5500 Annual Return/Report also serves as the primary means by which plan operations can be monitored by participants and beneficiaries and by the general public.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006) (PPA), enacted on August 17, 2006, changed certain annual reporting rules under ERISA and funding requirements under ERISA and the Code for pension plans. The PPA also required the Treasury Department/IRS and the Department to provide a simplified annual return for certain retirement plans that cover fewer than 25 participants. The Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, therefore, needs to be updated to reflect these PPA changes. The changes proposed in this document are limited to those needed to reflect the PPA annual reporting requirements and do not attempt to address comments received in connection with the July 2006 Proposal.
These supplemental proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, as well as the July 2006 Proposal, are part of the Agencies' move to a fully electronic filing and processing system to replace the existing paper-based ERISA Filing Acceptance System (EFAST). As part of that initiative, the Department published a final rule in the
Furthermore, in light of the time constraints, the Agencies are publishing in this Notice charts listing the line item data elements on the new actuarial schedules (Schedule SB and Schedule MB) and the new line item data elements for the Schedule R, as well as an indication of which items on the Schedule SB and Schedule MB are the same, similar to, or different from existing Schedule B data items. To enable the public to better evaluate the proposed changes, the Department is also making available on its Web site at
The PPA significantly changed the funding requirements applicable to defined benefit pension plans. These changes rendered the existing Schedule B largely obsolete, especially for single-employer defined benefit pension plans. While the PPA changes for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans allowed for continued use of a reporting scheme similar to the existing Schedule B, a number of Schedule B changes were required even for multiemployer plans. The Agencies believe that the appropriate way to address the PPA changes is to eliminate the existing Schedule B and create two new Schedules—the Schedule SB, “Single-employer Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Information,” and the Schedule MB, “Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plan and Money Purchase Plan Actuarial Information.”
The proposed Schedule SB would be filed by all single-employer defined benefit plans (including multiple-employer defined benefit plans).
The remaining data elements are to be in a similar format to the current Schedule B and consist of basic actuarial worksheets designed to allow the Agencies to evaluate the plan's compliance with the funding requirements as amended by sections 101, 102, 111, and 112 of the PPA, and to ensure that the reporting requirements under ERISA, as amended by section 503 of the PPA, are included on the schedule. The material is divided into sections consisting of “Basic Information,” “Beginning of Year Carryover and Prefunding Balances,” “Funding Percentages,” “Contributions and Liquidity Shortfalls,” “Assumptions Used to Determine Funding Target and Target Normal Cost,” “Miscellaneous Items,” “Reconciliation of Unpaid Minimum Required Contributions for Prior Years,” and “Minimum Required Contribution for Current Year.” Plans for which the effective date of the new PPA funding rules is delayed (e.g., airlines that have frozen pension plans electing the alternate funding schedule, PBGC settlement plans, certain defense contractors, certain rural electrical cooperatives, etc.) will not be required to fill out all of these sections. Instead, additional information related to the applicable funding rules for such plans will be provided as an attachment. In addition to the supplemental schedules required in the past, additional attachments may be required as a result of the PPA. For example, if a plan is in at-risk status, additional information (e.g., whether the expense load applies, a breakdown by category of the at-risk funding target without regard to the five-year phase-in) may be required.
Section 107 of the PPA amended section 103(d)(11) of ERISA to require disclosure of the ratio of the current value of the assets of the plan to (A) the plan's funding target (as defined in section 303(d)(1) of the PPA, in the case of a single-employer plan), or (B) the plan's current liability (as defined in section 304(c)(6)(D) of the PPA, in the case of a multiemployer plan), if that ratio is less than 70 percent. This requirement is included in Part III, Line 17, of Schedule SB.
Because the PPA changes to the actuarial information reporting requirements were less substantial for multiemployer plans and money purchase plans, the Agencies are proposing to use the existing Schedule B as the structure for the proposed new Schedule MB, which is to be used for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans and all money purchase plans (single-employer and multiemployer). The proposed Schedule MB would use the same basic identifying information as on the existing Schedule B, although revising the check boxes for type of plans and eliminating the check box that in the past was used to indicate whether the plan had 100 or fewer participants in the prior year. The statement of the enrolled actuary would be modified to reflect that the actuarial assumptions must be individually reasonable.
Lines 1 through 3 of the existing Schedule B would remain essentially the same, except for the addition of a new element 1c(3) to report accrued liability under the unit credit cost method. To comply with section 503 of the PPA, the existing line 4 would be deleted and replaced with a new line 4 to identify information about whether the plan is in endangered, seriously endangered, or critical status, and, if so, whether the plan is complying with the applicable requirements for its funding improvement or rehabilitation plan. The current line 5 identifying the actuarial cost method would be revised to incorporate alternative methods available only to multiemployer plans, which were previously reported under item 8b, and to reflect additional information required by section 503 of the PPA for plans using the shortfall method. Similarly, the Schedule MB would incorporate most of Schedule B current lines 6 through 9, but would eliminate information on the weighted average retirement age and annual withdrawal rates. New items would be added to Item 8 to reflect information required under section 503 of the PPA pertaining to extensions of periods to amortize bases and the use of the shortfall method. In addition, the requirement to provide a schedule of active participant data would be extended to multiemployer plans. With respect to Item 9, lines pertaining to additional interest charges due to late quarterly contributions, and any adjusted funding charges would be eliminated. Schedule MB would also revise the questions regarding the bases for which amortization periods are extended and revise the questions to conform to sections 201, 202, 211, and 212 of the PPA the questions on the reconciliation account. The Part II of the current Schedule B, which does not relate to multiemployer plans, would be deleted.
Section 503 of the PPA amended ERISA by adding ERISA section 103(f)(2), which requires multiemployer plans to report the amount of assets transferred in a multiemployer plan merger, information on withdrawing employers and their withdrawal liability, information on employers contributing to multiemployer plans, and information on participants for whom no employers made contributions.
The Agencies' July 2006 Proposal required plan administrators to identify major contributing employers to multiemployer defined benefit pension plans so that the PBGC could improve its ability to assess the financial condition of the plan and the financial risk posed to the plan by the financial collapse or withdrawal of one or more contributing employers. For these employers, the plan would be required to report on Schedule R: (1) Name of the
Several additional new questions would be added to the Schedule R to comply with section 503 of the PPA. The Schedule R, new Part V, under this proposal, would now be expanded to provide more information on multiemployer defined benefit plans. It would ask for information regarding participants for whom no employer contributions were made for the current plan year and the two preceding plan years and information regarding the number of employers withdrawing from the plan and the assessed and estimated withdrawal liability. A new Part VI would be added to Schedule R to collect funded percentage information for single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension plans with liabilities arising from mergers or transfers of assets during the plan year.
This proposal also moves to Part VI of Schedule R the asset allocation questions for large defined benefit plans (1000 or more participants) included on the Schedule B in the July 2006 Proposal. Under this supplemental proposal, the Schedule R would include a new section requiring such plans to report the percentage of total plan assets held as stock; debt (with break-outs for government, investment-grade, and high yield debt); real estate; and other. The plan would also be required to provide a Macaulay duration of aggregate debt investments. As part of the development of the new Schedules SB and MB, the Agencies decided to move these questions to the Schedule R from the Schedule B (where they appeared in the July 2006 Proposal) because the Agencies concluded that this essentially financial information should not be subject to the enrolled actuary certification requirement applicable to other Schedule SB and MB information. This supplemental proposal to include these asset distribution questions for certain large defined benefit plans on the Schedule R should not be construed as a determination by the Agencies regarding public comments received in response to the July 2006 Proposal on the substance of the proposed questions themselves.
Section 1103(b) of the PPA requires the Secretary of the Treasury/IRS and the Secretary of Labor to provide for the filing of a simplified annual return for any retirement plan which covers fewer than 25 participants on the first day of the plan year and which (1) meets the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b) of the Code without being combined with any other plan of the business that covers the employees of the business; (2) does not cover a business that is a member of an affiliated service group, a controlled group of corporations, or a group of businesses under common control; and (3) does not cover a business that uses the services of leased employees (within the meaning of section 414(n) of the Code). The PPA provision does not include specific requirements as to the form or content of the simplified filing.
As noted above, the July 2006 Proposal included, among other changes: (1) The establishment of a Form 5500-SF Annual Return/Report (Short Form or Short Form 5500) as a new simplified report for certain small plans. The Short Form is a new two-page form for small plans (generally, plans with fewer than 100 participants) with secure and easy to value investment portfolios. As set forth in greater detail in the July 2006 Proposal, a plan would be eligible to file the Short Form if the plan: (1) Covers fewer than 100 participants or would be eligible to file as a small plan under the 80 to 120 rule in 29 CFR 2520.103-1(d); (2) is eligible for the small plan audit waiver under 29 CFR 2520.104-46 (but not by virtue of enhanced bonding); (3) holds no employer securities; and (4) has 100% of its assets in investments that have a readily ascertainable fair market value. Because the Agencies believe that all multiemployer plans should be required to answer newly proposed questions on the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report and the Schedule R regarding contributing employers, as proposed, multiemployer plans were not to be eligible to file the Short Form. Most Short Form filers would not be required to file any schedules, although defined benefit pension plans would continue to be required to file Schedule SB, where applicable. Those small plans not eligible to use the Short Form could still avail themselves of the current simplified reporting alternatives for small pension plans.
The Agencies believe that the requirement in the PPA to provide “simplified” reporting for plans with fewer than 25 participants is satisfied by the simplified reporting scheme in the July 2006 Proposal. The Agencies believe that the Short Form 5500, as proposed, was targeted to provide a simplified report for plans with fewer than 25 employees because we estimate that approximately 75% of all plans eligible to file the Short Form cover fewer than 25 participants. The Agencies propose to continue to prohibit plans that invest in employer securities or other hard to value assets and multiemployer plans from being eligible to use the Short Form 5500. The Agencies believe this conclusion is consistent with the PPA's emphasis on increasing transparency, accurate measurement of assets, greater participant control over the disposition of employer securities in defined contribution plans, and expanding the annual reporting requirements for multiemployer plans. As under the July 2006 Proposal, small plans not eligible to use the Short Form 5500 still would be able to avail themselves of the other simplified reporting options available to small plans under the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report and its schedules.
A list of the proposed data elements for the Short Form 5500 and a mock-up of the Short Form and the instructions were published in the
Section 1103(b) of the PPA requires a simplified report to be available for 2007 plan year filings, i.e., filings for plan years beginning after December 31, 2006. This proposal addresses the simplified report requirement for 2008 plan years, i.e., those beginning after December 31, 2007. For the 2007 plan year, the Agencies will allow plans covering fewer than 25 participants that would meet the conditions for being eligible to file the Short Form 5500 if those conditions applied to 2007 filings to file an abbreviated version of the current Form 5500 Annual Return/Report available for “small plan” filers. Specifically, the Department anticipates that the simplified report will to a large extent replicate within the context of the existing Form 5500 Annual Return/Report structure the information that would be required to be reported on the proposed Short Form 5500 (Form 5500-SF), possibly by allowing certain schedules to be excluded from the filing or requiring only certain line items to be completed on required schedules. The Department understands that some eligible small plan filers may want to wait until the 2008 plan year to file the Short Form in order to avoid having to implement changes to their annual reporting systems and procedures for their 2007 plan year filings and then adjust them again in 2008 to file the Short Form, and, accordingly, the Department intends that these plans will have the option of continuing to file in accordance with the normal rules for the 2007 plan year. Specific guidance regarding this simplified reporting option will be included in the instructions to the 2007 Form 5500. The Agencies currently anticipate posting information copies of the 2007 forms and instructions in July 2007.
Section 504 of the PPA requires that, for defined benefit pension plans, the basic plan identifying information and actuarial information included in the annual report must be filed with the Department in an electronic format that accommodates display on the Internet. As noted above, the Department has an ongoing initiative to move to a wholly electronic filing and processing system for all Form 5500 reports filed with the Department starting with reporting years beginning on or after January 1, 2008. The Department's Request for Proposal on the EFAST2 system published on September 1st already calls for the system to be capable of electronic public disclosure of all Form 5500 filings. The Department intends that the new EFAST2 system and the Electronic Filing Rule will satisfy section 504 of the PPA's requirement regarding electronic filing with and display of information by the Department.
Section 104(a)(2)(A) of ERISA authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to prescribe by regulation simplified reporting for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants. Section 104(a)(3) authorizes the Secretary to exempt any welfare plan from all or part of the reporting and disclosure requirements of Title I of ERISA or to provide simplified reporting and disclosure if the Secretary finds that such requirements are inappropriate as applied to such plans. Section 110 permits the Secretary to prescribe for pension plans alternative methods of complying with any of the reporting and disclosure requirements if the Secretary finds that: (1) The use of the alternative method is consistent with the purposes of Title I of ERISA, provides adequate disclosure to plan participants and beneficiaries, and provides adequate reporting to the Secretary; (2) application of the statutory reporting and disclosure requirements would increase costs to the plan or impose unreasonable administrative burdens with respect to the operation of the plan; and (3) the application of the statutory reporting and disclosure requirements would be adverse to the interests of plan participants in the aggregate. For purposes of Title I of ERISA, the filing of a completed Form 5500 Return/Report, including the filing of the proposed Short Form 5500, in accordance with the instructions and related regulations, generally would constitute compliance with the limited exemption and alternative method of compliance in 29 CFR 2520.103-1(b).
The Department finds under sections 104(a)(3) and 110 of ERISA that the use of the proposed Short Form 5500, the Schedule SB and MB to replace the Schedule B, and the revised Schedule R, along with the previously proposed revised Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, is consistent with the purposes of Title I of ERISA and provides adequate disclosure to participants and beneficiaries and adequate reporting to the Secretary. While the information that would be required to be reported on or in connection with the revised Form 5500 Annual Return/Report and the proposed Short Form 5500 deviates, as before, in some respects, from that delineated in section 103 of ERISA, the information essential to ensuring adequate disclosure and reporting under Title I is required to be included on or as part of the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, as proposed to be revised, and the proposed Short Form 5500.
The use of the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, as revised, or the proposed Short Form 5500 will relieve plans subject to the annual reporting requirements from increased costs and unreasonable administrative burdens by providing a standardized format that facilitates reporting, eliminates duplicative reporting requirements, and simplifies the content of the annual report in general. The Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, under the proposed revision, including the proposed Short Form, is intended to further reduce the administrative burdens and costs attributable to compliance with the annual reporting requirements.
Taking into account the above, the Department has determined that application of the statutory annual reporting and disclosure requirements without the availability of the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, including the proposed Short Form 5500, would be adverse to the interests of participants in the aggregate. The proposed revised Form 5500 Annual Return/Report provides for the reporting and disclosure of financial and other plan information described in section 103 of ERISA in a uniform, efficient, and understandable manner, thereby facilitating the disclosure of such information to plan participants and beneficiaries.
Finally, the Department has determined that the use of the Short Form 5500 is a simplified means of reporting for purposes of the requirements of section 1103 of the PPA that takes into account the appropriate balance of reducing filing burdens for plans with fewer than 25 participants without impairing enforcement, research, and policy needs, and providing adequate disclosure to participants and beneficiaries, which balance is required by section 104(a) of ERISA.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Department must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, it has been determined that this regulatory action raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates and the President's priorities. Therefore, this action is a “significant regulatory action” and subject to OMB review under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866. The Department accordingly has undertaken to assess the costs and benefits of this regulatory action in satisfaction of the applicable requirements of the Executive Order.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-4 (available at
Unless stated otherwise, this analysis describes the increases and decreases in benefits, costs, and burdens that this proposal alone would cause as compared to the costs, benefits, and burdens created by current law. Where this proposal modifies a forms revision included in the July 2006 Proposal, we attempt to explain the nature of the modification, but we have not attempted to quantify any differences in the respective economic analyses.
The
Executive Order 12866 directs federal agencies promulgating rules to evaluate regulatory alternatives. The Department has concluded that its proposal to substitute separate actuarial schedules for single-employer plans and multiemployer plans for the existing Schedule B and to add new questions to the Schedule R is appropriate as a means to collect additional information as required by the PPA. Further, the Department has concluded that the July 2006 Proposal to make available the Short Form 5500 for plans with fewer than 100 participants would be an appropriate way to simplify reporting and reduce filer burden for plans with fewer than 25 participants, as required in section 1103 of the PPA, while still meeting the needs of participants, beneficiaries, the public, and the Department in full and adequate disclosure.
In developing form revisions and implementing regulatory changes, as required by the PPA, the Department considered several alternatives. The Department's consideration included, for example, different approaches to the Schedule B, R, and H changes as well as the eligibility criteria for the Short Form 5500.
The public is invited to comment specifically on the decision points for the proposed revisions and on the adequacy of the models, assumptions, and data developed to evaluate regulatory burden. In considering these alternatives, the Department weighed the objective of reduced regulatory burden against the need for adequate reporting and disclosure, quantifying impacts where possible.
•
•
However, the Department continues to believe, as noted in the July 2006 Proposal, that prohibiting use of the Short Form 5500 by plans with employer securities or other assets that are difficult to value is consistent with important policy objectives. The importance of those policies is underscored by the PPA's emphasis on increasing plan transparency, accurate measurement of assets, greater participant control over the disposition of employer securities in defined contribution plans, and expanding the annual reporting requirements for multiemployer plans. All plans with fewer than 25 participants will be able to file a simplified annual return. In most cases that simplified return will be the Short Form 5500, but as under the July 2006 Proposal, small plans not eligible to use the Short Form 5500 still will be able to avail themselves of the other simplified reporting options available to small plans under the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report and its schedules.
•
Benefits—The use of the Short Form 5500 for eligible plans to satisfy the simplified reporting requirement in the PPA and of the Form 5500, Schedules SB and MB, and Annual Return/Report and Schedule R, as modified, to obtain the additional annual reporting required by the PPA, will provide a standardized, streamlined alternative means of compliance with applicable statutory reporting requirements, as well as providing appropriate simplified annual reports and exemptions under section 104(a)(2) and (3) of ERISA. In so doing, they will both ease plan administrators' burden of compliance with reporting requirements and enhance the utility and accessibility of information reported to the government, participants and beneficiaries, and others. In particular, the regulations and forms, together with the Department's planned program for assisting filers in the preparation and electronic submission of filings, will give plan administrators clear guidance and a supportive, routine mechanism for satisfying the new reporting obligations. They also will make it possible to efficiently capture and assemble the information into an electronic data system, as also required by the PPA. The data will then be processed and analyzed in the service of many beneficial activities. These include monitoring compliance with ERISA's reporting and other requirements; targeting and carrying out prompt and effective enforcement actions; informing participants and beneficiaries of the characteristics, operations, and financial status of their benefit plans; producing statistics on the employee benefit system, monitoring
Costs—The Supplemental Proposed Forms Revisions will reduce the burden for small plans eligible to file the Short Form 5500, but increase the burden for plans that must report additional information on Schedules SB or MB, R and H. As shown in Table 3, the aggregate cost of reporting under the existing rules is estimated to be $775 million annually,
Similar to the July 2006 Proposal, the Department assumes that substantial revisions to the existing reporting requirements will entail some one-time transition costs, but that such costs are generally loaded into the prices paid by plans for affected services and products, spread both across plans and across the expected life of the service and product changes. The Department's estimates provided here are therefore intended to reflect such spreading and loading of these transaction costs.
In addition to estimating the total impact of the proposed revisions on aggregate costs, the Department has broken down the change in costs by individual revisions in the following way:
1. Separate actuarial schedules for single-employer plans and multiemployer plans to reflect PPA changes in funding and annual reporting requirements. Under the Supplemental Proposed Forms Revisions the Schedule B will be separated into a Schedule SB for single-employer and multiple-employer defined benefit plans and a Schedule MB for multiemployer defined benefit and money purchase plans. Relative to the current filing requirement, the establishment of Schedule SB will reduce the total annual burden for 43,000 affected filers by a little more than 18,000 hours. Applying an hourly labor rate of $88 for service providers and $61 for plan sponsors, the Department estimates that this will lower the annual reporting cost by an estimated $1.59 million.
2. Additional Data Elements on Schedule R. The provision of this information is anticipated to add an estimated additional annual cost of $1.07 million (13,000 hours) for 20,000 affected filers when applying an hourly rate of $88 for service providers and $61 for plan sponsors.
3. Establishment of a Short Form 5500 for certain small plans. A large majority of small plans, or 425,000 of the 629,000 total small plan filers, are estimated to be eligible to use the Short Form 5500, thereby saving an estimated $77 million (942,000 hours) annually. Again, the Department is applying an hourly rate of $88 for service providers and $61 for plan sponsors.
4. Electronic Filing and Web site Display of Form 5500 Information. This requirement is not anticipated to add any additional costs, as plans must be capable of electronic public disclosure beginning with the 2008 reporting year due to the Electronic Filing Rule.
A summary of the changes in costs and burden hours that were allocated to the groups of proposed supplemental changes as outlined above, as well as the number of affected employee benefit plans, can be found in Table 4 below.
The cost and burden associated with the annual requirement for any given plan will vary according to a variety of factors, including the plan's characteristics, practices, and operations, which in turn determine what information must be provided. A small, single-employer defined contribution pension plan filing a new Short Form 5500 generally will incur far lower costs than a large, multiemployer defined benefit plan that merges with another multiemployer plan and invests in employer securities or other hard to value assets. Therefore, as in the July 2006 Proposal, in arriving at its aggregate cost estimates the Department separately considered the cost to different types of plans of providing different types of information. The basis for the Department's estimates is the methodology designed and peer reviewed for the July 2006 Proposal and repeated below.
Assumptions Underlying This Analysis—The Department's analysis of the costs and benefits of these supplemental proposed revisions assumes that all benefits and costs will be realized in the first year of the reporting cycle to which the amendments apply and within each year thereafter. This assumption is based on the nature of the statutory reporting provisions, which require that each plan complete a filing within a yearly period. The Department has used a “status quo” baseline for this analysis, assuming that the world absent this proposal and absent the July 2006 Proposal will resemble the present.
Methodology—The underlying cost data was developed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), and has been used by the Agencies in various burden estimates related to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report during recent years.
A new burden estimating model, based on the Form 5500 Burden Model that MPR most recently used for estimating burdens in October 2004, was assembled by Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) for the July 2006 Proposal and subsequent burden estimates. ARC assembled a simplified model, drawing on implied burdens associated with subsets of filer groups represented in the MPR model. The model used the level of detail consistent with reflecting burden differences associated with the various proposed forms revisions. In the following, the ARC model is described in broad terms. Further details about the model are explained in the Technical Appendix that can be accessed at the Department's Web site at
To estimate aggregate burdens, the types of plans that have similar reporting requirements were grouped together. Thus, calculations were prepared for different subsets of types of plans as appropriate based on the specifics of the supplemental revisions to the reporting requirements. Table 5 below shows the particular types of plans considered, the number of plans affected by the proposed revisions, as well as the aggregate costs under current and supplemental proposed requirements. As can be seen from the Total line in Table 5, aggregate cost under current and proposed regulations add up to $775 million and $698 million, respectively. The universe of filers was divided into three basic plan types: defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution pension plans, and welfare plans, and each of these major plan types was further subdivided into multiemployer and single-employer plans. Defined contribution Code section 403(b) plans were treated separately from other defined contribution plans. Since the filing requirements differ substantially for small and large plans, the plan types were also divided by plan size. For large plans (100 or more participants), the defined benefit plans were further divided between very large (1000 or more participants) and other large plans (at least 100 participants, but less than 1000 participants). Small plans were divided into very small (less than 25 participants) and small (at least 25 participants, but less than 100 participants). For each of these sets of respondents, burden hours per respondent were estimated for the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report itself and for up to eight schedules.
In addition to separating plans by type and size, costs were estimated separately for the form and for each schedule. When items on a Form 5500 Annual Return/Report schedule are required by more than one Agency, the estimated burden associated with that schedule is allocated among the Agencies. This allocation is based on whether only a single item on a schedule is required by more than one agency or whether several or all of the items are required by more than one agency. Filers must read not only the instructions for particular items but also instructions pertaining to the general filing requirements, and the burden associated with reading the instructions is tallied and allocated accordingly.
A plan's reporting burden is estimated in light of the specific items and schedules it must complete as well as its size, funding method, and investment structures. For example, the annual report for a large fully insured welfare plan would consist of only a few questions on the Form 5500, Schedule A, and Schedules C and G, where applicable. The requirement that this
Burden estimates for each schedule were adjusted for the proposed revisions, reflecting the numbers of items added or deleted in each schedule, and the average burden currently attributable to items on each of the corresponding current schedules. The burden for the proposed Short Form 5500 was built from the estimated current burden associated with the various line items included in it.
The Department has not attributed a recordkeeping burden to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report either here or in its Paperwork Reduction Act analysis because it believes that plan administrators' practice of keeping financial records necessary to complete the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report arises from usual and customary management practices that would be used by any financial entity, and does not result from ERISA or Code annual reporting and filing requirements.
The aggregate baseline burden is the sum of the burden per form and schedule filed multiplied by the estimated aggregate number of forms and schedules. The simplified model draws on Form 5500 Annual Return/Report data representing each plan's filing for plan year 2003 (the most recent year for which complete data is available), both for estimating the impact of changes in the numbers of filings associated with the introduction of the Short Form 5500 for most small filers as well as for estimating the impact of changes in filing obligations associated with other schedules.
Uncertainty within Estimates—The Department acknowledges that there are several areas of uncertainty that might affect the estimates, in particular the unit cost estimates. While the Department has a good sense for the filing universe and for the number of filers that file the different schedules of the Form 5500, the unit costs under the current requirements as well as the way they would change due to the proposed revisions are more uncertain. The Department has no direct measure for the unit costs, but rather uses a proxy adapted from the existing MPR model, which was developed in the late 1990s. Additional uncertainty is added due to the supplemental proposed revisions. Some of the revisions just move items from the current Schedule B to the single-employer or multiemployer schedule. The impact of these changes can be estimated more accurately than the impact of the revisions that require the reporting of new items. Consequently, the unit cost estimates would benefit from updated information and the Department welcomes comments that would provide information on this matter.
In December 2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005) (Peer Review Bulletin), establishing that important scientific information shall be peer reviewed before it is disseminated by the Federal government. The Peer Review Bulletin applies to original data and formal analytic models used by the Department in Regulatory Impact Analyses. The Department determined that the data and methods employed in the regulatory analysis of the July 2006 Proposal constituted “influential scientific information” as defined in the Peer Review Bulletin. Accordingly, a peer review was conducted under Section II of the Bulletin. The peer review report concluded that the methodology and data generally were sound and produced plausible estimates. The current proposal uses the same methodology and, accordingly, the Department is relying on the Peer Review Report prepared in connection with the July 2006 Proposal for its proposed use of the Short Form 5500 to satisfy the simplified reporting requirement and additional reporting requirements for defined benefit pension plans contained in the PPA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of analysis under the RFA, EBSA proposes to continue to consider a small entity to be an employee benefit plan with fewer than 100 participants. The basis of this definition is found in section 104(a)(2) of ERISA, which permits the Secretary to prescribe simplified annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants. Under ERISA section 104(a)(3), the Secretary may also provide for exemptions or for simplified reporting and disclosure for welfare benefit plans. Pursuant to the authority of ERISA section 104(a)(3), the Department has previously issued at 29 CFR 2520.104-20, 2520.104-21, 2520.104-41, 2520.104-46, and 2520.104b-10 certain simplified reporting provisions and limited exemptions from reporting and disclosure requirements for small plans,
Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in general small employers maintain most small plans. Thus, EBSA believes that assessing the impact of this proposal on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business that is based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631
(1) The Department is proposing to revise the forms relating to the annual reporting and disclosure requirements of section 103 of ERISA to satisfy requirements of the PPA.
The Department continually strives to tailor reporting requirements to minimize reporting costs while ensuring that the information necessary to secure ERISA rights is adequately available. The optimal design for reporting requirements to satisfy these objectives changes over time. Benefit plan designs and practices evolve over time in response to market trends, including trends in labor markets, financial markets, health care and insurance markets, and markets for various services used by plans. Partly as a result of those changes, the nature and mix of compliance issues and risks to ERISA rights change over time. Frequent amendments to ERISA, the Code, and to associated regulations also change the parameters of ERISA rights and the methods needed to protect those rights. In addition, the technologies available to manage and transmit information continually advance. It is incumbent on the Department to revise its reporting requirements from time to time to keep pace with such changes. The Department is proposing these forms revisions to readjust its reporting requirements to take into account the PPA as well as certain recent changes in markets, the law, and technology, many of which are referenced above in this preamble.
(2) Section 103 of ERISA requires every employee benefit plan covered under part 1 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA to publish and file an annual report concerning, among other things, the financial conditions and operations of the plan. Section 109 of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to prescribe forms for the reporting of information that is required to be included in the annual report. Section 104(a)(2)(A) of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to prescribe by regulation simplified annual reporting for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants. Section 104(a)(3) of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to exempt any welfare plan from all or part of the reporting and disclosure requirements of Title I of ERISA or to provide simplified reporting and disclosure if the Secretary finds that such requirements are inappropriate as applied to such plans. Section 110 of ERISA permits the Secretary to prescribe for pension plans alternative methods of complying with any of the reporting and disclosure requirements if the Secretary finds that: (1) The use of the alternative method is consistent with the purposes of Title I of ERISA, and it provides adequate disclosure to plan participants and beneficiaries and adequate reporting to the Secretary; (2) application of the statutory reporting and disclosure requirements would increase costs to the plan or impose unreasonable administrative burdens with respect to the operation of the plan; and (3) the application of the statutory reporting and disclosure requirements would be adverse to the interests of plan participants in the aggregate.
The Department proposes to find that use of the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, as revised, along with the proposed Short Form 5500, constitutes an alternative method of compliance, an exemption, and/or a simplified report, as applicable, consistent with these conditions. Generally, the Department believes that use of the revised Form 5500 Annual Return/Report and the proposed Short Form 5500 would relieve plans of all sizes of increased costs and burdens by providing a standard format that facilitates reporting required by the statute, eliminating duplicative reporting requirements, and streamlining the content of the annual return/report.
The objectives of these proposed supplemental forms revisions are to implement applicable provisions of the PPA, as well as to streamline reporting and reduce aggregate reporting costs, particularly for small plans, while preserving and enhancing protection of ERISA rights. These purposes are detailed above in this preamble.
(3) These supplemental proposed forms revisions do not alter the number of small plans required to comply with the annual reporting requirements, but do implement a new Short Form 5500, which is designed specifically to further streamline the limited reporting requirements presently applicable to small plans. The Department estimates that more than six million small, private-sector employee pension and welfare benefit plans are covered under Title I of ERISA. However, a large majority of these are fully insured or unfunded welfare benefit plans, which currently are exempt from annual reporting requirements and will continue to be exempt under these proposed forms revisions. Approximately 629,000 small plans, including small pension plans and small funded welfare plans, currently are required to file annual reports and will continue to be so required under these supplemental forms revisions. Of these, under the supplemental forms revisions an estimated 425,000 small pension plans will be eligible to use the proposed new Short Form 5500. Use of the Short Form 5500 is expected to reduce these plans' reporting costs while preserving or enhancing the protection of their participants' ERISA rights.
(4) The proposed reporting requirements applicable to small plans are detailed above. For a large majority of the 629,000 small plans subject to annual reporting requirements, or an estimated 396,000 pension plans, submission of the Short Form 5500 alone will fully satisfy their annual reporting requirements. All of these plans are eligible for the waiver of audit requirements, and none are defined benefit pension plans. Therefore, for such plans satisfaction of their applicable annual reporting requirements is not expected to require the services of an IQPA or auditor, but will require the use of a mix of clerical and professional administrative skills. For an additional 29,000 small defined benefit pension plans that would be eligible to use the streamlined Short Form 5500, satisfaction of the reporting requirements also will require services of an actuary and submission of Schedule SB. The remaining 204,000 small plans will not be eligible to use the Short Form 5500 under the PPA and will continue to be required to file the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report. Of these, 8,000 are defined benefit plans that must use an actuary and file Schedule SB or MB. All will require a mix of clerical and professional
Satisfaction of annual reporting requirements under these proposed forms revisions is not expected to require any additional recordkeeping that would not otherwise be part of normal business practices.
The Table 6 below compares the Department's estimates of small plans' reporting costs under the current requirements with those under the supplemental proposed requirements for various classes of affected plans. As shown, costs under the supplemental proposed requirements will be lower on aggregate and for most classes of plans. These estimates take account of the quantity and mix of clerical and professional skills required to satisfy the reporting requirements for various classes of plans.
The Department notes that the estimated reporting costs amount to less than $400 on average for each of the 629,000 small plans subject to annual reporting requirements. This compares with roughly $3,000 on average for each of the 152,000 affected large filers.
(5) Except for the July 2006 Proposal, the Department is unaware of any relevant federal rules for small plans that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with these proposed forms revisions. The July 2006 Proposal includes provisions that overlap and duplicate with some of the form changes proposed in this notice of supplemental proposed forms revisions. For example, the July 2006 Proposal proposes the Short Form 5500 not only for certain small pension plans with less than 25 participants, but also for certain small pension and welfare plans with less than 100 participants. As noted above, the Department anticipates combining the forms revisions under the July 2006 Proposal and the supplemental proposed forms revisions when it finalizes the forms revisions.
(6) In developing the forms revisions, the Department considered a number of alternative provisions directed at small plans. For example, as discussed in the July 2006 Proposal, the Department considered both narrower and broader eligibility criteria for use of the Short Form 5500, settling on criteria that limit eligibility to plans holding relatively safe and protected assets, which nonetheless includes a large majority of small plans. The Department also considered the inclusion of more or fewer of the items of information formerly collected from small plans in the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report, retaining only those items it believes to be necessary and adequate to the protection of small plan participants' ERISA rights.
(7) The Department invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the impact on small plans of these Supplemental Proposed Forms Revisions, and on the Department's assessment thereof. The Department also requests comments on the alternatives it considered and its conclusions regarding those alternatives; on any additional alternatives it should have considered; on what, if any, special problems small plans might encounter if the proposal were to be adopted; and what changes, if any, could be made to minimize those problems.
As part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the general public and Federal agencies are generally invited to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data will be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) will be minimized, collection instruments will be clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Concurrent with publication of the July 2006 Proposal, the Department submitted an information collection request (ICR) to OMB, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), for its review of the Department's proposed revisions to the information collections previously approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 1210-0110.
On August 29, 2006, OMB issued a notice indicating that it would continue its approval of the information collections under Control No. 1210-0110 as currently in effect, but would not approve the Department's request for approval of the proposed revisions until after the Department considers public comment and promulgates a final rule describing and explaining any changes. The IRS and the PBGC indicated, in the July 2006 Proposal, that they intend to submit separate requests for OMB review and approval based upon the final forms revisions, and the Department now indicates its intention to do so as well. The Department solicits comments on any information collection burdens described in this Notice of Supplemental Proposed Forms Revisions.
The notice of proposed forms revisions being issued here is subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as well as Executive Order 12875, the proposal does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate of more than $100 million, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million.
Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental principles of federalism and requires adherence to specific criteria by federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposal does not have federalism implications because they would have no 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. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA. The requirements implemented in this proposal does not alter the fundamental provisions of the statute with respect to employee benefit plans, and as such would have no implications for the States or the relationship or distribution of power between the national government and the States.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority in sections 101, 103, 104, 109, 110 and 4065 of ERISA and section 6058 of the Code, the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report and the instructions thereto are proposed to be amended as set forth herein, including the addition of the proposed Short Form 5500.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is reporting for the quarter July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006 with respect to both assistance provided under Section 605 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-199, Division D (the Act)), and transfers of funds to other federal agencies pursuant to Section 619 of that Act. The following report shall be made available to the public by means of publication in the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before January 10, 2007. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting the Life Cycle Management Division (NWML) using one of the following means:
Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request.
Laurence Brewer, Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1539.
Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
Schedules Pending (Note that the new time period for requesting copies has changed from 45 to 30 days after publication):
1. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (N1-136-06-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master data file associated with an electronic information system used to collect information and report on the grading of poultry and related billing matters. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
2. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (N1-136-06-5), 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records of a system used by the Science and Technology Program to provide vital records protection and ready reference assistance. The schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
3. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (N1-540-06-4, 11 items, 9 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation relating to a data warehouse that provides a centralized source of information on research, education, and extension programs of the agency and its partner institutions in the areas of food, agriculture, and natural resources. Scheduled for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of 4-H enrollment data and the documentation needed to access and maintain those files. Records with significant research value pertaining to related agency programs are scheduled separately for permanent retention.
4. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (N1-540-07-1, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Reports on funding and staffing levels for research projects and salary information from institutions which receive agency funding, along with working files and other supporting documentation. Records with significant research value are captured in the Current Research Information System, which has been scheduled as permanent.
5. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-06-2, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to administrative actions taken to correct conduct deficiencies of soldiers. Included are copies of administrative reprimands, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature. This schedule
6. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-06-9, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to granting and tracking absences from military posts including leave requests, control logs, and military passes. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping.
7. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-06-15, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to the certification and management of facilities storing arms, ammunition, and explosives. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
8. Department of Defense, Army and Air Force Exchange Service (N1-334-06-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Cash count and reconciliation records for routine and surprise audits of cashier drawers and vaults.
9. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (N1-361-04-1, 12 items, 12 temporary items). Records created by the Environmental Quality Program, including environmental inquiries, environmental training records, records relating to disposal of low-level waste materials, and reports, studies and related correspondence on the agency's Installation Restoration Program.
10. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (N1-330-06-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files associated with an electronic information system used to review export license requests. Included are export licensing data received from government agencies.
11. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging (N1-439-06-3, 22 items, 22 temporary items). Records accumulated by the Center for Management including Deputy Assistant Secretary's schedules; executive officer's administrative files; budget formulation files; financial management files; grants award, program support, and working files; copies of personnel files; administrative policies and procedures directives; working copies of organizational analysis files; copies of routine procurement and acquisition files; copies of printing, binding, duplication, and distribution files; HHS University registration files; Work and Life Program files; continuity of operation plan files; and Office of Administrative Services working files.
12. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (N1-88-06-4, 5 items, 4 temporary items). Records accumulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research including advertisement and promotional labeling pieces and associated materials received for review; enforcement case files for drug advertisements found to be in violation of the FDA regulations; and master files and outputs associated with electronic tracking systems used during the drug advertisement and promotional labeling review process. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of closeout records of enforcement case files. For all items on this schedule except the master files, the agency is authorized to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
13. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (N1-566-06-3, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation associated with an electronic system used to conduct background checks on applicants/petitioners seeking benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The agency proposes a 75 year retention for the master files.
14. Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service (N1-87-06-2, 4 items, 2 temporary items). Inputs and outputs associated with an electronic system used to collect and analyze threatening correspondence directed at the President, Vice-President, and other high-ranking government officials. Proposed for permanent retention are the master files and system documentation.
15. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development (N1-207-07-1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Case files on appeals and civil cases filed under statutes relating to real estate acquisition and relocation programs.
16. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (N1-65-06-15, 1 item, 1 temporary item). This schedule requests authority to destroy case number 70C-OC-58332, which pertains exclusively to the investigation of the captioned individual and meets the criteria in previous schedule N1-65-88-3 for permanent retention. This request responds to a Federal Pre-Trial Diversion Program court order to delete the records of the captioned individual.
17. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (N1-65-06-16, 1 item, 1 temporary item). This schedule requests authority to destroy within case number 281A-NK-92575 all documents pertaining to a specific individual, who is not the subject of the investigation. The case file meets the criteria in N1-65-88-3 for permanent retention. This request responds to a Federal Pre-Trial Diversion Program court order to delete the records of the individual.
18. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (N1-65-07-2, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Paper and electronic versions of correspondence with other law enforcement agencies relating to identifying and locating wanted fugitives who are receiving federally funded benefits contrary to law.
19. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center (N1-523-06-1, 7 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to the agency's liaison and outreach activities with Congress and other Federal, State, and local organizations. Included are copies of speeches, presentations, and correspondence documenting the agency's public counterdrug efforts. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of records related to the Counterdrug Intelligence Coordinating Group and Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat and mission-related liaison records of high-ranking agency officials.
20. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (N1-59-07-2, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records associated with emergency security support for overseas posts as well as training records related to overseas security matters and mobile security deployments.
21. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (N1-237-06-2, 12 items, 6 temporary items). Records relating to the Aviation and Space Education program including records of meetings with stakeholders, regional partnership case files, inputs and outputs associated with an electronic database tracking outreach activities, and employee volunteer case files. Proposed for permanent retention are the recordkeeping copies of files documenting the program's history, organization and accomplishments; program correspondence; national partnership case files; master files and system documentation associated with an electronic database tracking outreach activities; and records documenting the establishment and operation of national and regional education programs.
22. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (N1-416-05-2, 37 items, 26 temporary items). Records of the Office of Communications and Consumer Information, including newsclips, reading files, staff directories, listserv records, weekly reports, project tracking systems, the Web site, and event planning, exhibit,
23. Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (N1-101-06-2, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Retiree case files and inputs, master files, and system documentation for a database tracking employee retirement benefits.
24. Environmental Protection Agency (N1-412-06-24, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Software, electronic data on participating agencies, e-mail identification and verification data, and supporting documentation associated with a Web-based portal providing public access to Federal regulatory dockets for which the agency is the overall managing partner.
25. Environmental Protection Agency (N1-412-07-1, 25 items, 25 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of recordkeeping medium. Included are special study files, audit, evaluation, and investigation response files, congressional correspondence, Federal facilities monitoring files, requests for correction or reconsideration in regard to information quality, legislation files, quality assurance project plans, intra-agency and internal committee records, state and other entity relations and oversight files, compliance files, ombudsman and citizen complaint files,
26. Environmental Protection Agency (N1-412-07-2, 24 items, 9 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of recordkeeping medium. Included are the following series for which the paper recordkeeping copies have previously been approved for disposal: Summaries of Clean Air Act review and comment files, unpublished regulations and guidelines, routine enforcement action files, staff members' manuscripts that are not mission-related, and records of routine international activities and agreements. Included are the following series for which the paper recordkeeping copies have previously been approved as permanent: FOIA annual reports, management studies, organizational plans, National Environmental Policy Act preparation files, Clean Air Act review and comment files, published regulations and guidelines, reports to Congress and the President, authorization and approval files for programs run by states and other non-Federal entities, landmark or precedent-setting enforcement action files, administrative records pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, final drafts of mission-related manuscripts by agency personnel, and records of significant international activities and agreements.
27. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects (N1-138-06-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to preliminary filings by companies applying for certificates to operate natural gas pipelines. Included are environmental assessments, public notices, and related correspondence.
28. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Inspector General (N1-266-05-2, 11 items, 9 temporary items). Case files and tracking systems pertaining to internal and external audits and investigations. Included are non-substantive case files and master files and outputs of tracking systems. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of final audit reports and investigative case files involving senior agency officials that result in serious disciplinary action, substantive changes in policy, or draw Congressional interest or national media attention.
29. Small Business Administration, Administrative Information Branch (N1-309-05-19, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation associated with an electronic information system used as a repository of success stories based on assistance from the agency.
30. United States Institute of Peace, Education Program (N1-573-07-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Entry and evaluation forms for the National Peace Essay Contest.
10 a.m., Thursday, December 14, 2006.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) Operating Level for 2007.
2. Final Rule: Part 708a of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Conversion of Insured Credit Unions to Mutual Savings Banks.
3. Final Rule: Part 703 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Permissible Investments for Federal Credit Unions.
11:15 a.m.
11:30 a.m., Thursday, December 14, 2006.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. One (1) Insurance Claim. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8).
Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
5 U.S.C. 4314 (c) (4) requires that the appointments of individuals to serve as members of performance review boards be published in the
By Direction of the Board.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated November 14, 2006, from Carolina Power & Light Company, (doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.), filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew the operating license for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1. Renewal of the license would authorize the applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current operating license. The current operating license for HNP, Unit 1, (NPF-63), expires on October 24, 2026. HNP, Unit 1, is a pressurized water reactor designed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation that is located in Wake County, North Carolina. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of subsequent
Copies of the application are available to the public at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852 or through the internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under Accession Number ML063350262. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at
A copy of the license renewal application for the HNP, Unit 1, is also available to local residents near the site at the Eva. H. Perry Library, 2100 Shepherd's Vineyard Drive, Apex, North Carolina 27502.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures.
L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1396; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).
NRC has issued a specific license to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), authorizing storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. This Order is being issued to PG&E, which has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the specific license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 72.184 require PG&E to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.51 or 73.55, as applicable.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives, to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment, in a consistent manner, throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1
The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific
To provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. PG&E's specific license, issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.40, is modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest, require that this Order be effective immediately.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 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 Parts 50, 72, and 73,
A. PG&E shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in its security plan. It shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before May 30, 2007, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is earlier.
B.1. PG&E shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement.
2. If PG&E considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, it must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, PG&E must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications, as required in Condition B.1.
C.1. PG&E shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1.
2. PG&E shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
D. All measures implemented or actions taken, in response to this Order, shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
PG&E's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, for good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PG&E must, and any other entity adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV, at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011; and to the licensee, if the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to
If a hearing is requested by PG&E or an entity whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), PG&E may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
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 III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issuance of Order for Implementation of Additional Security Measures Associated with Access Authorization.
L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1396; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).
NRC issued a specific license to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), authorizing the operation of an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 72.184 require PG&E to have a safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.51 or 73.55, as applicable.
Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to, or greater than, any other person, to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all licensees that currently store spent fuel or have identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements that emerged from NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1
The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order, in response to previously issued advisories, the October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at the licensee's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel.
Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further, because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework.
To provide assurance that PG&E is implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, PG&E's specific license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.40 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 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 50, 72, and 73,
A. PG&E shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in PG&E's security plan. PG&E shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than May 30, 2007, with the exception of the additional security measure B.4, which shall be implemented no later than November 30, 2007. In any event, PG&E shall complete implementation of all additional security measures before the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI.
B.1. PG&E shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the
2. If PG&E considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, PG&E must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, PG&E must supplement its response to Condition B.1, of this Order, to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required under Condition B.1.
C.1. PG&E shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1.
2. PG&E shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
D. All measures implemented, or actions taken, in response to this Order, shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
PG&E's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, for good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PG&E must, and any other entity adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011; and to the licensee, if the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to
If PG&E or an entity whose interest is adversely affected requests a hearing, the Commission will issue an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), PG&E may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
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 III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. an answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment.
Kathy Dolce Modes, Health Physicist, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415; (610)337-5251; fax number (610)337-5269; or by e-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 37-07653-02. This license is held by Alcoa, Inc. (Formerly known as the Aluminum Company of America) (the Licensee), for its Alcoa Research Laboratory (the ARL Facility), located at Freeport Road in
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 28, 2006, license amendment request, resulting in release of the ARL Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 37-07653-02 was issued on April 18, 1958, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed and sealed byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods.
The Facility is situated on 14.126 acres in a residential area, and consists of office space and laboratories. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to 5,889 square feet in Building 29 and 2,320 square feet in Building 44.
On February 10, 2004, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the ARL Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its ARL Facility.
The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: Hydrogen-3, sodium-22, aluminum-26, calcium-45, manganese-54, iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63, zinc-65, strontium-90, cadmium-109, antimony-125, cesium-137, and thallium-204. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted final status surveys in Buildings 29 and 44 in 1971, 2004, and 2006 and attached a final status survey report to their amendment request dated August 28, 2006. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable.
Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the amendment of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the ARL Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.
NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for review on October 12, 2006. On October 27, 2006, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responded by e-mail (ML063000472). The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species
The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;”
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”
NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;”
Licensee letter dated June 21, 2005 and attachments—first request to remove ARL facility from license (ML051920272); and
Licensee letter dated August 28, 2006 and attachments—final request to remove ARL facility from license (ML062550071).
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment.
Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone (610) 337-5366; fax number (610) 337-5393; or by e-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 37-07438-15. This license is held by Philadelphia Health & Education Corporation, d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine (the Licensee), for the area leased to the Licensee within the Delaware Valley College of Agriculture and Science's Mandrell Science Building (the Facility), located at 700 E. Butler Avenue in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 28, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 28, 2006, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 37-07438-15 was issued on July 17, 1977, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30 and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods.
The Facility is a 15,000 square foot leased area, within the 66,300 square foot Mandrell Science Building, located on the 80 acre Delaware Valley College of Agriculture and Science Campus. The Facility consists of office space and laboratories. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to laboratories totaling 2,680 square feet.
On July 26, 2006, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks release of the Facility for unrestricted use.
The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of hydrogen-3, which has a half-life greater than 120 days. Prior to
The Licensee conducted a final status survey on August 15, 2006. This survey covered areas of material use within the Facility. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated August 28, 2006. A previous survey was performed on July 30, 2004, after the use of hydrogen-3 had been completed at the Facility. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.
NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection, for review on November 13, 2006. On November 14, 2006, the Commonwealth responded by e-mail. The Commonwealth agreed with the conclusions of the EA and otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
1. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;”
2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”
3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”
4. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;”
5. Philadelphia Health & Education Corp. d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine, Amendment Request Letter dated August 28, 2006. (ML062550419)
6. Philadelphia Health & Education Corp. d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine, Deficiency Response Letter dated October 10, 2006. (ML062960347)
7. Philadelphia Health and Education Corporation d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine, RAI, Previous Transfer of Location of Use of the Mandell Science Building located in Doylestown, PA, telephone log dated October 30, 2006. (ML063060010)
8. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, additional information facsimile dated July 30, 2004. (ML042190441)
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Licensees identified in Attachment 1
The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of SGI. Section 147 of the AEA grants the Commission explicit authority to issue such Orders as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of SGI. Furthermore, Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and an FBI identification and criminal history records check of each individual who seeks access to SGI. In addition, no person may have access to SGI unless the person has an established need-to-know the information and satisfies the trustworthy and reliability requirements described in Attachment 3 to Order EA-06-289.
In order to provide assurance that the Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289 are implementing appropriate measures to comply with the fingerprinting and criminal history records check requirements for access to SGI, all Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289 shall implement the requirements of this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 147, 149, 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, 10 CFR Parts 30 and 73,
A. 1. No person may have access to SGI unless that person has a need-to-know the SGI, has been fingerprinted or who has a favorably-decided FBI identification and criminal history records check, and satisfies all other applicable requirements for access to SGI. Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and criminal history records check are not required, however, for any person who is relieved from that requirement by 10 CFR 73.59 [71 FR 33,989 (June 13, 2006)], or who has a favorably-decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five (5) years, or who has an active federal security clearance, provided in the latter two cases that the appropriate documentation is made available to the Licensee's NRC-approved reviewing official.
2. No person may have access to any SGI if the NRC has determined, based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and criminal history
B. No person may provide SGI to any other person except in accordance with Condition III.A. above. Prior to providing SGI to any person, a copy of this Order shall be provided to that person.
C. All Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289 shall comply with the following requirements:
1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, establish and maintain a fingerprinting program that meets the requirements of Attachment 1 to this Order.
2. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit the fingerprints of one (1) individual who (a) the Licensee nominates as the “reviewing official” for determining access to SGI by other individuals, and (b) has an established need-to-know the information and has been determined to be trustworthy and reliable in accordance with the requirements described in Attachment 3 to Order EA-06-289. The NRC will determine whether this individual (or any subsequent reviewing official) may have access to SGI and, therefore, will be permitted to serve as the Licensee's reviewing official.
3. The Licensee shall, in writing, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in this Order, including Attachment 1 to this Order, or (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
Licensee responses to C.1., C.2., and C.3. above shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee responses shall be marked as “Security-Related Information—Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390.”
The Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by the Licensee.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or 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 Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Licensees shall comply with the requirements of this attachment.
A. 1. Each Licensee subject to the provisions of this attachment shall fingerprint each individual who is seeking or permitted access to Safeguards Information (SGI). The Licensee shall review and use the information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and ensure that the provisions contained in the subject Order and this attachment are satisfied.
2. The Licensee shall notify each affected individual that the fingerprints will be used to secure a review of his/her criminal history record and inform the individual of the procedures for revising the record or including an explanation in the record, as specified in the “Right to Correct and Complete Information” section of this attachment.
3. Fingerprints need not be taken if an employed individual (
4. All fingerprints obtained by the Licensee pursuant to this Order must be submitted to the Commission for transmission to the FBI.
5. The Licensee shall review the information received from the FBI and consider it, in conjunction with the trustworthy and reliability requirements included in Attachment 3 to this Order, in making a determination whether to grant access to SGI to individuals who have a need-to-know the SGI.
6. The Licensee shall use any information obtained as part of a criminal history records check solely for the purpose of determining an individual's suitability for access to SGI.
7. The Licensee shall document the basis for its determination whether to grant access to SGI.
B. The Licensee shall notify the NRC of any desired change in reviewing officials. The NRC will determine whether the individual nominated as the new reviewing official may have access to SGI based on a previously-obtained or new criminal history check and, therefore, will be permitted to serve as the Licensee's reviewing official.
A Licensee shall not base a final determination to deny an individual access to SGI solely on the basis of information received from the FBI involving: an arrest more than one (1) year old for which there is no information of the disposition of the case, or an arrest that resulted in dismissal of the charge or an acquittal.
A Licensee shall not use information received from a criminal history check obtained pursuant to this Order in a manner that would infringe upon the rights of any individual under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor shall the Licensee use the information in any way which would discriminate among individuals on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, or age.
For the purpose of complying with this Order, Licensees shall, using an appropriate method listed in 10 CFR 73.4, submit to the NRC's Division of Facilities and Security, Mail Stop T-6E46, one completed, legible standard fingerprint card (Form FD-258, ORIMDNRCOOOZ) or, where practicable, other fingerprint records for each individual seeking access to Safeguards Information, to the Director of the Division of Facilities and Security, marked for the attention of the Division's Criminal History Check Section. Copies of these forms may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by calling (301) 415-5877, or by e-mail to
The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness. Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or evident errors will be returned to the Licensee for corrections. The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one re-submission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one free re-submission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number reflected on the re-submission. If additional submissions are necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will require a second payment of the processing fee.
Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment with the application for processing fingerprints by corporate check, certified check, cashier's check, money order, or electronic payment, made payable to “U.S. NRC.” [For guidance on making electronic payments, contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities and Security, at (301) 415-7404]. Combined payment for multiple applications is acceptable. The application fee (currently $27) is the sum of the user fee charged by the FBI for each fingerprint card or other fingerprint record submitted by the NRC on behalf of a Licensee, and an NRC processing fee, which covers administrative costs associated with NRC handling of Licensee fingerprint submissions. The Commission will directly notify Licensees who are subject to this regulation of any fee changes.
The Commission will forward to the submitting Licensee all data received from the FBI as a result of the Licensee's application(s) for criminal history records checks, including the FBI fingerprint record.
Prior to any final adverse determination, the Licensee shall make available to the individual the contents of any criminal records obtained from the FBI for the purpose of assuring correct and complete information. Written confirmation by the individual of receipt of this notification must be maintained by the Licensee for a period of one (1) year from the date of the notification. If, after reviewing the record, an individual believes that it is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes to change, correct, or update the alleged deficiency, or to explain any matter in the record, the individual may initiate challenge procedures. These procedures include either direct application by the individual challenging the record to the agency (i.e., law enforcement agency) that contributed the questioned information, or direct challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on the criminal history record to the Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification Division, Washington, DC 20537-9700 (as set forth in 28 CFR 16.30 through 16.34). In the latter case, the FBI forwards the challenge to the agency that submitted the data and requests that agency to verify or correct the challenged entry. Upon receipt of an official communication directly from the agency that contributed the original information, the FBI Identification Division makes any changes necessary in accordance with the information supplied by that agency. The Licensee must provide at least ten (10) days for an individual to initiate an action challenging the results of an FBI criminal history records check after the record is made available for his/her review. The Licensee may make a final SGI access determination based upon the criminal history record only upon receipt of the FBI's ultimate confirmation or correction of the record. Upon a final adverse determination on access to SGI, the Licensee shall provide the individual its documented basis for denial. Access to SGI shall not be granted to an individual during the review process.
1. Each Licensee who obtains a criminal history record on an individual pursuant to this Order shall establish and maintain a system of files and procedures for protecting the record and the personal information from unauthorized disclosure.
2. The Licensee may not disclose the record or personal information collected and maintained to persons other than the subject individual, his/her representative, or to those who have a need to access the information in performing assigned duties in the process of determining access to Safeguards Information. No individual authorized to have access to the information may re-disseminate the information to any other individual who does not have a need-to-know.
3. The personal information obtained on an individual from a criminal history record check may be transferred to another Licensee if the Licensee holding the criminal history record check receives the individual's written request to re-disseminate the information contained in his/her file, and the gaining Licensee verifies information such as the individual's name, date of birth, social security number, sex, and other applicable physical characteristics for identification purposes.
4. The Licensee shall make criminal history records, obtained under this section, available for examination by an authorized representative of the NRC to determine compliance with the regulations and laws.
5. The Licensee shall retain all fingerprint and criminal history records received from the FBI, or a copy if the individual's file has been transferred, for three (3) years after termination of employment or determination of access to SGI (whether access was approved or denied). After the required three (3) year period, these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent reconstruction of the information in whole or in part.
Postal Rate Commission.
Thursday, December 14, 2006, at 10 a.m.
Commission conference room 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
Closed.
Decision in Docket No. N2006-1, Evolutionary Network Realignment.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Rate Commission, 202-789-6820 or
In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) conducts a number of customer surveys designed to determine the kinds and quality of services our beneficiaries, claimants, employers and members of the public want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with existing RRB services. The information collected is used by RRB management to monitor customer satisfaction by determining to what extent services are satisfactory and where and to what extent services can be improved. The surveys are limited to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions, and do not collect information which is required or regulated. The information collection, which was first approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1997, provides the RRB with a
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine (1) The practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of December 11, 2006:
An Open Meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 10 a.m. in Room L-002, the Auditorium.
The subject matters of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 13, 2006, will be:
1. The Commission will consider whether to propose, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, new rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to implement the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act bank exceptions to the definition of “broker.” The Commission will also consider extending the temporary exemption of banks from the definition of “broker.” In addition, the Commission will consider whether to propose additional related rules, including rules exempting banks from the definition of “dealer” under the Exchange Act.
2. The Commission will consider whether to repropose a new rule that would enable a foreign private issuer meeting specified conditions to terminate permanently its Exchange Act registration and reporting obligations under Section 12(g) regarding a class of equity securities and its Section 15(d) reporting obligations regarding a class of equity or debt securities. The Commission will also consider whether to repropose a rule amendment that would apply the exemption from Exchange Act registration under Rule 12g3-2(b) to a class of equity securities immediately upon the effective date of the issuer's termination of registration and reporting obligations under the reproposed new exit rule.
3. The Commission will consider whether to propose interpretive guidance to assist the management of an Exchange Act reporting company, other than an investment company registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, in planning and performing its annual evaluation of internal control over financial reporting. The Commission will also consider whether to propose amendments to Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act that would make it clear that a company choosing to perform an evaluation of internal control in accordance with the interpretive guidance would satisfy the annual evaluation required by those rules.
4. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to the proxy rules under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. The amendments would provide an alternative for Internet-based disclosure. Companies conducting proxy solicitations could satisfy the Rule 14a-3 requirement to furnish proxy materials by posting those proxy materials on an Internet Web site and providing shareholders with notice of the Internet availability of the materials. Other soliciting persons also would be permitted to follow the Internet alternative. The Commission also will consider whether to propose mandating Internet disclosure of proxy materials.
5. The Commission will consider whether to propose a new antifraud rule under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Commission will also consider whether to propose a new rule under the Securities Act of 1933 to revise the criteria for natural persons to be considered “accredited investors” for purposes of investing in certain privately offered investment vehicles.
6. The Commission will consider whether to re-open the comment period on proposed Rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to enhance the independence and effectiveness of investment company directors, and in connection therewith, to publish economic analyses of mutual fund governance and independence issues by the Office of Economic Analysis.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on the participant exchanges. The six participants to the OPRA Plan are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”), the NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”).
Under the terms of the OPRA Plan, subject to the exception described in Section VIII(c)(iii), FCOs traded on any of the exchanges that are parties to the Plan are ordinarily assigned to a separate “FCO service” rather than OPRA's “basic service” to which equity and index options are assigned. As a result, subject to the exception described below, separate fees and charges are imposed for access to the FCO service, and all revenues and expenses pertaining to the FCO service are allocated to a separate “FCO Accounting Center” established under Section VIII(c) of the OPRA Plan.
To date, FCOs have been traded only on the Phlx. In late 2005, at the request of the Phlx and with the Commission's approval, OPRA amended Section VIII(c) of the ORPA Plan by adding a new subparagraph (iii) thereto, which provides that during a temporary period ending on December 31, 2007, new classes of FCO Securities introduced for trading on Phlx (such classes are defined as “New FCO Securities”) will be included in OPRA's basic service and not in its FCO service.
The ISE recently advised OPRA that it intends to commence trading in certain classes of FCOs, and it represented that none of the FCOs it intends to trade will be fungible with classes of FCOs traded on the Phlx. Since by its terms Section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan currently applies only to new classes of FCOs that are listed on the Phlx, in response to the ISE's request, OPRA now proposes to amend that Section to make it apply to all classes of FCOs newly listed by any exchange that is a party to the OPRA Plan while that Section remains in effect. This will assure that all classes of newly listed FCOs will be treated the same by being included in OPRA's basic service, rather than in its FCO service regardless of the exchange on which those classes are traded.
The text of the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan is set forth below. Text additions are in
(a)-(b) No Change.
(c) FCO Accounting Center Costs and Revenues
(i)-(ii) No Change.
(iii) Special Temporary Provision for Newly Traded FCO Securities.
This paragraph (c)(iii) applies only to FCO Securities that are introduced for trading
Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, effective during a temporary period ending on December 31, 2007, or on such earlier date as may be established by the party or parties trading New FCO Securities, written notice of which shall be given to the other parties (“period of effectiveness”), access to information and facilities pertaining to New FCO Securities shall not be subject to the separate fees and charges that would otherwise apply to such access pertaining to FCO Securities, but instead shall be subject to those fees and charges that apply to Eligible Securities other than FCO Options and Index Options. During the period of effectiveness, revenues derived from New FCO Securities shall be allocated to OPRA's basic accounting center and shall be further allocated among the parties as described in section VIII(a)(iv), and trades in New FCO Securities shall be treated as trades in Eligible Securities other than FCO Options and Index Options and not as trades in FCO Securities. At the close of business on the last day of the period of effectiveness, this section VIII(c)(iii) shall automatically terminate and cease to be of any further effect.
The proposed amendment will be effective upon its approval by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA Plan amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt changes to its AEMI-One rules to provide for the execution of an unexecuted odd-lot balance on an aggressing order as the result of an unexecuted odd-lot balance on an away market obligation that was routed to another market by the AEMI platform to access a better-priced protected quotation.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has recently adopted new rules to implement an initial version of AEMI, its proposed new hybrid market trading platform for equity products and exchange-traded funds.
Consequently, the possibility exists that, under unusual circumstances, AEMI might receive only a partial fill on a round-lot order and be left with a rejected odd-lot portion of a round-lot order that was suspended on the AEMI Book. In the example cited above, it is possible that 160 shares out of the 200 shares routed away would be filled but that the balance of 40 shares would be rejected. The Exchange's current Rule 205-AEMI-One addresses odd-lot orders that are submitted to AEMI as such, but it is not applicable to a rejected odd-lot portion of an order submitted for a round lot, since the latter was not intentionally for an odd lot but became an odd lot due to the action of another market.
The Exchange believes that the situation described above, in which the Exchange would be left with a rejected odd-lot portion of an away market obligation that was transmitted to another market as a round-lot order, will be a rare event. However, it is necessary to make appropriate changes to the AEMI platform and to the Exchange's AEMI-One rules to provide for this possibility.
The Exchange is therefore proposing to add language to Rule 205-AEMI-One (Manner of Executing Odd-Lot Orders) to distinguish such occurrences from the treatment of odd-lot orders that are submitted as such and to provide for the proper treatment of such odd-lot rejections by other markets. Proposed new paragraph (b)(viii) of the rule would provide that, if a partial-lot trade is received from an away market in response to an away market obligation sent by AEMI, resulting in an unexecuted balance which comprises an odd lot, then any unexecuted odd-lot balance on the aggressing order (including the unexecuted odd-lot balance from the away market obligation) shall be traded immediately against the Specialist at the last trade price of the away market obligation, and any remaining unexecuted round-lot balance shall reaggress the AEMI Book in accordance with Rule 126A-AEMI-One.
The following examples illustrate how the proposed additional rule provision would operate:
Assume an incoming client order to buy 100 shares of XYZ Corp. AEMI routes the entire order to Nasdaq to access a better-priced offer. If the Exchange receives back a trade for only 80 shares at the limit price and a rejection for 20 shares, that 20-share odd-lot balance would trade against the Specialist at the same price as the 80-share execution on Nasdaq.
Assume an incoming client order to buy 130 shares of XYZ Corp. AEMI routes 100 shares to Nasdaq to access a better-priced offer. If the Exchange receives back a trade for only 80 shares at the limit price and a rejection for 20 shares, the unexecuted odd-lot balance on the order of 50 shares (including the unexecuted odd-lot balance of 20 shares from the away market obligation) would trade against the Specialist at the same price as the 80-share execution on Nasdaq. This is the same outcome for the order that would have resulted if the execution at the away market had been for the entire 100 shares that was routed to that market.
Assume an incoming client order to buy 280 shares of XYZ Corp. AEMI routes 200 shares to Nasdaq to access a better-priced offer. If the Exchange receives back a trade for 70 shares at the limit price, followed by a trade for 100 shares at the limit price and a rejection for 30 shares, the remaining unexecuted 110-share balance of the order would include an odd-lot balance of 10 shares that would trade against the Specialist at the same price as the 100-share execution on Nasdaq and a round-lot balance of 100 shares that would reaggress the AEMI Book.
The Exchange asserts that the proposal to effect the foregoing change to the AEMI trading system does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and does not have the effect of limiting the access to or availability of the system.
The proposed rule change is designed to be consistent with Regulation NMS,
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.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) have the effect of limiting the access to or availability of an existing order entry or trading system of the Exchange, the foregoing rule change has become effective immediately 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 at
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq is providing guidance regarding factors it generally considers in adjudicating clearly erroneous transactions under NASD Rule 11890.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq is adopting Interpretive Material under NASD Rule 11890 to provide guidance with regard to its consideration of transactions that may be clearly erroneous. Paragraph (a) of NASD Rule 11890 allows market participants to petition Nasdaq to nullify or modify trades in non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities that they allege to be clearly erroneous. Paragraph (b)(1) allows Nasdaq to nullify or modify trades on its own motion in the event of a disruption or malfunction in the use or operation of Nasdaq systems or extraordinary market conditions or other circumstances in which the nullification or modification of transactions may be necessary for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market or the protection of investors and the public interest. Nasdaq is providing one set of Interpretive Material relating to NASD Rule 11890(a) and many events involving a single stock under NASD Rule 11890(b)(1), and a second set of Interpretive Material relating to events involving multiple stocks under NASD Rule 11890(b)(1). In each case, the Interpretive Material is intended to provide market participants with insights into the factors generally considered by Nasdaq in determining whether to nullify or modify trades under the rule.
At its basic level, NASD Rule 11890 is intended to allow Nasdaq to adjudicate disputes between firms as to the status of a trade, with a goal of
Nevertheless, in an environment of continual increases in the scope and speed of electronic trading, NASD Rule 11890(b)(1) provides an important safeguard against market disruptions caused by trader errors or system malfunctions that result in executions affecting multiple market participants and/or securities. Thus, NASD Rule 11890(b)(1) mitigates systemic risk by providing a mechanism to break erroneous trades that may have a serious detrimental effect on one or more market participants. NASD Rule 11890(b)(1) has been used both with respect to events affecting a single stock, as where an erroneous order causes a large number of trades involving multiple market participants to execute, and events affecting multiple stocks, as where a system malfunction results in a more widespread problem. Because of its focus on system malfunctions and overall market integrity, market participants should not assume that NASD Rule 11890(b)(1) will be used where, for example, they failed to file a complaint within the time periods specified in NASD Rule 11890(a). However, the rule could be available in cases where a trade not eligible for adjudication under NASD Rule 11890(a) nevertheless could present systemic risks if permitted to stand. Thus, for example, if a firm's erroneous trades had the potential to cause a firm's insolvency but its petition was untimely, Nasdaq might consider using NASD Rule 11890(b)(1)(ii) to prevent the insolvency.
Thus, under both parts of the rule, Nasdaq strives to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility, to ensure that (i) Similar situations are addressed in a similar manner, (ii) market participants do not attempt to use the rule to attain unfair advantage, and (iii) the rule is not written or construed in a way that may prevent action necessary to protect market quality or prevent systemic problems and thereby maintain a fair and orderly market and protect investors and the public interest. With these considerations in mind, Nasdaq believes that the Interpretive Material allows market participants to achieve a better understanding of Nasdaq's application of the rule without limiting its adaptability. In effect, the Interpretive Material describes Nasdaq's understanding of the precedents that have emerged through years of adjudications under the rule; as with judicial precedents, they serve as a guide to future cases without constricting adaptability to new or unique fact patterns.
Both sets of Interpretive Material reflect that Nasdaq generally considers a transaction to be clearly erroneous when the print is substantially inconsistent with the market price at the time of execution. In making such a determination, Nasdaq takes into account the circumstances at the time of the transaction, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors and the public interest. The Interpretive Material also stresses that participants in Nasdaq are responsible for ensuring that the appropriate price and type of order are entered into Nasdaq's systems. Simple assertion by a firm that it made a mistake in entering an order or a quote, or that it failed to pay attention or to update a quote, may not be sufficient to establish that a transaction was clearly erroneous.
IM-11890-4 concerns all complaints filed by market participants under NASD Rule 11890(a), as well as many events involving a single security considered on Nasdaq's own motion pursuant to NASD Rule 11890(b)(1). Nasdaq primarily considers the execution price of a trade in determining whether it is clearly erroneous. Specifically, Nasdaq generally uses the following guidelines:
Thus, the degree of deviation from a specified reference price needed for a trade to be declared clearly erroneous depends on the execution price: securities trading at lower prices require a higher percentage deviation before they will be considered clearly erroneous, since the normal daily trading ranges for these securities generally involve larger percentage movements. In the case of securities priced at $1.75 or below, a trade will generally be considered clearly erroneous if it is eligible for adjudication at all under the minimum thresholds under NASD Rule 11890(a)(2)(C)(ii), since these thresholds require significant percentage deviation before a low-priced trade is eligible. Thus, in all cases, the threshold under which a trade will generally be considered clearly erroneous is equal to or greater than the eligibility threshold under Rule 11890(a)(2)(C)(ii).
Nasdaq uses different Reference Prices based on time of the trade of the security in order to establish an appropriate comparison point. These Reference Prices are detailed below. In unusual circumstances, however, Nasdaq may use a Reference Price not specifically described in the Interpretive Material. For example, in a case where material news about a security was released after market close for the security and a trade occurring after 4
In occasional circumstances, Nasdaq may consider additional factors in determining whether a transaction is clearly erroneous. These include:
• Material news released for the security
• Suspicious trading activity
• System malfunctions or disruptions
• Locked or crossed markets
• Trading in the security was recently halted/resumed
• The security is an initial public offering
• Volume and volatility for the security
• Stock-split, reorganization or other corporate action
• Validity of consolidated tape trades and quotes and Nasdaq BBO comparison to national BBO
• General volatility of market conditions
• Reason for the error
IM-11890-5 concerns multi-stock events adjudicated on Nasdaq's own motion pursuant to NASD Rule 11890(b)(1). In such cases, Nasdaq primarily considers the numerical factors of the execution prices in determining whether trades should be nullified. Generally all trades more than 10% away from the Reference Price would be clearly erroneous.
Nasdaq uses different Reference Prices based on time of the trade in order to establish an appropriate comparison point. These Reference Prices are detailed below. In unusual circumstances, however, Nasdaq may use a different Reference Price.
In occasional circumstances, Nasdaq may consider additional factors in determining whether the transactions in a multi-stock event are clearly erroneous, including material news released for individual securities or suspicious trading activity.
The guidance set forth in IM-11890-4 will apply to many events involving a single security adjudicated pursuant to NASD Rule 11890(b)(1). However, Nasdaq may apply the guidance set forth in IM-11890-5 to some events involving a single security, such as some situations where trading activity occurs in multiple market centers and Nasdaq is acting in consultation with other markets.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing proposed rule change is subject to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Nasdaq provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the filing promotes market participants' understanding of Nasdaq's application of NASD Rule 11890, thereby promoting greater certainty with regard to the administration of the rule. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective upon filing with the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt new Phlx Rule 510 to (1) Establish performance requirements for SQTs and RSQTs, (2) authorize the Exchange to conduct performance evaluations periodically, and (3) authorize the Exchange's Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee (“OAESC”)
Proposed Phlx Rule 510 provides for monthly performance evaluations of SQTs and RSQTs to determine whether they have fulfilled performance standards relating to, among other things, quality of markets, efficient quote submission to the Exchange (including quotes submitted through a third party vendor), competition, observance of ethical standards, and administrative factors.
The proposal would permit the Exchange to consider requests for relief from established quote spread parameters on the Exchange
New Phlx Rule 510 would establish specific criteria for each option assigned to an SQT or RSQT that would be regularly evaluated by the Exchange. First, the Exchange would evaluate the percentage of total quotes submitted by the SQT or RSQT that represent the NBBO. If the percentage of the total quotes that represent the NBBO is in the lowest quartile of all SQTs or RSQTs for two or more consecutive months, this may be considered sub-standard performance.
Second, the Exchange would evaluate the SQT or RSQT's adherence to the Exchange's established quoting requirements pursuant to Phlx Rule 1014.
Third, the Exchange would consider the number of requests for quote spread parameter
Finally, to evaluate efficient quote submission to the Exchange, the Exchange will consider how an SQT or RSQT optimizes the submission of quotes through the SQF, as defined in Phlx Rule 1080, by evaluating the number of individual quotes per quote “block” received by the Exchange.
A quote “block” is a component of the Exhange's SQF application that allows for delivery of a set of multiple quotations from the SQT or RSQT to the Exchange. Within a single “block,” the SQT or RSQT can deliver quotes for any number of option series ranging from 1 to 99.
An SQT or RSQT is assigned a number of ports or lines on which they can send quote blocks. The number of lines assigned dictates the number of blocks that may be sent simultaneously by the SQT or RSQT. The number of lines assigned to an SQT or RSQT is generally a function of the number of products being quoted, taking into account the throughput required to minimize quote latency risk.
The Exchange intends to evaluate the average number of quotes (1-99) submitted within the SQT or RSQT's quote blocks. The number of quotes delivered in each block would generally be a measure of the SQT or RSQT's quoting efficiency. For example, a firm sending an average of 1 quote in each block may be considered inefficient while a firm sending an average of 99 quotes in each block would be considered very efficient.
In general, the expenditure of systemic resources required to process an inefficient block is nearly equal to the expenditure of systemic resources required to process an efficient block. Therefore, an efficient SQT or RSQT can achieve a much higher level of quote submission than an inefficient SQT or RSQT using nearly the same amount of exchange system resources. The Exchange believes that the regular monitoring of quoting efficiency in this fashion will result in more efficient quoting on the Exchange (
In conclusion, the Exchange believes that the proposed performance requirements for SQTs and RSQTs should, among other things, promote quoting efficiency and preserve system capacity, increase competition, minimize requests for relief from quote spread parameters, and encourage efficient adherence to quoting obligations, to the benefit of customers and the marketplace in general.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Dominic Hoang, Project Development Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capitol Mall, #4-100, Sacramento, CA 95814; weekdays 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Pacific time); telephone (916) 498-5002; e-mail:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing approvals for the following highway project in the State of California. The U.S. Highway 101 Prunedale Improvement Project would improve safety and operations within the project limits of 9.2 miles along U.S. Highway 101 north of Salinas in Monterey County. This would be accomplished by: constructing two new interchanges; improving an existing interchange; constructing a four-lane access controlled freeway on a new alignment between 0.18 miles north of Boronda Road interchange and the intersection of Martines Road; placing median barrier at various locations; and constructing local roads including the addition of one new local-road overcrossing and one new local-road undercrossing. FHWA project reference number is PPNO 0058G. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, approved on March 13, 2006, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The EA/FONSI, and other documents are available by contacting FHWA or Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The FHWA EA/FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; and Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. Land: Landscape and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 319].
4. Wetlands and Water Resources: Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; and Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m) and 133(b)(11)].
5. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; and Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
6. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
7. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]; and The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended.
8. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675]; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)].
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O.12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; and E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Pursuant to a trackage rights agreement dated November 13, 2006, between Iowa Interstate Railroad, Ltd. (IAIS) and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), IAIS has agreed to grant BNSF overhead trackage rights on IAIS's main line between milepost 170.2, at Colona, IL, and milepost 175.4, at East Moline, IL, a distance of 5.2 miles, and over various meeting or passing tracks connecting with IAIS's main line, as IAIS may designate (the Joint Trackage).
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or after December 22, 2006.
The purpose of the trackage rights is to allow BNSF use of the Joint Trackage
As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34959, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Jake P. DeBoever, BNSF Railway Company, 2500 Lou Menk Drive, 3rd Floor, Fort Worth, TX 76131-2828.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On November 21, 2006, the City of South Bend, IN (the City), the Brothers of Holy Cross, Inc. (the Brothers), and the Sisters of the Holy Cross, Inc. (the Sisters) (collectively, applicants), filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 10903, requesting that the Surface Transportation Board authorize the third-party or adverse abandonment of approximately 3.7 miles of railroad lines (the Lines) owned by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR).
According to applicants, the Lines traverse properties owned by the Brothers and the Sisters. The Brothers' property is the site of Holy Cross College, Holy Cross Village (a retirement community), and other improvements and uses furthering the Brothers' charitable mission. The Sisters' property is the site of a motherhouse, the international headquarters of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross, and the Inn at St. Mary's, and it is adjacent to St. Mary's College, which the Sisters sponsor.
Applicants state that there has been no rail service or requests for service on the Lines for at least 10 years and claim that there is no foreseeable need for rail service. Additionally, applicants claim that sections of the Lines have been paved over and removed at numerous locations and that the Lines are physically severed from the national rail system as a result of previous abandonments.
Applicants state that the line between milepost UV 0.0 and milepost UV 2.8 crosses 17 streets in the City, two of which carry significant vehicular traffic, creating a public nuisance and significant safety and environmental concerns. They add that the City plans to acquire or condemn the portion of the right-of-way within its jurisdiction for public use in the form of a sewer system and a trail. Additionally, applicants claim that a portion of that line and of the line between milepost Z0 9.6 and milepost Z0 10.5 are adversely affecting the Brothers' ability to plan for the future because they run through the heart of its property. The Brothers and the Sisters also assert a claim under Indiana law to a reversionary interest in this section of the right-of-way.
In a decision served in this proceeding on October 26, 2006, applicants were granted waivers from some of the requirements of the Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1152 that were not relevant to their adverse abandonment application or that sought information not available to them. Specifically, applicants were granted a fee waiver; waivers from the notice requirements at 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2)(i) and (2)(xii), 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(3), and 49 CFR 1152.21; waivers from the application requirements at 49 CFR 1152.10-14, 49 CFR 1152.22(a)(5), (b)-(d), and (i), and 49 CFR 1152.24(e)(1); and waivers from the offer of financial assistance (OFA) and public use procedures at 49 CFR 1152.27-28.
Based on the information in their possession, applicants state that the Lines do not contain any federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in applicants' possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. Applicants state that they filed their entire case for abandonment with their application.
NSR has no employees on the Lines. Accordingly, there are no railroad employee interests that require labor protection.
Any interested person may file written comments concerning the proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire opposition case) by January 5, 2007. Applicants' reply is due on January 22, 2007. Because this is an adverse abandonment proceeding, OFA's and public use requests are not appropriate and will not be entertained.
The Board has not yet had occasion to decide whether the issuance of a certificate of interim trail use in an adverse abandonment would be consistent with the grant of such an application. Accordingly, any request for a trail use condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be filed by January 5, 2007, and should address that issue. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee.
Persons opposing the proposed adverse abandonment who wish to participate actively and fully in the
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 286) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Richard H. Streeter, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, 750 17th Street, NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006-4657. Filings may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions found on the Board's
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Any other persons who would like to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS) may contact SEA. EAs in abandonment or discontinuance proceedings normally will be made available within 33 days of the filing of the application. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. The comments received will be addressed in the Board's decision. A supplemental EA or EIS may be issued where appropriate.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment/discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to SEA at (202) 565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Subscription For Purchase and Issue of U.S. Treasury Securities, State and Local Government Series.
Written comments should be received on or before February 12, 2007, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-8150.
Title: Subscription For Purchase And Issue Of U.S. Treasury Securities—State And Local Government Series.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Regulations governing the offering of United States Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company Tax and Loss Bonds.
Written comments should be received on or before February 12, 2007, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, and (304) 480-8150.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Special Bond Of Indemnity to the United States of America.
Written comments should be received on or before February 12, 2007, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-8150.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Request To Reissue United States Savings Bonds.
Written comments should be received on or before February 12, 2007, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-8150.