Agricultural Marketing Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
National Institute of Corrections
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the marketing order for almonds grown in California. The amendments were proposed by the Almond Board of California (Board), which is responsible for local administration of the order. The amendments will authorize the establishment of different outgoing quality requirements for different markets and authorize the establishment of bulk container marking and labeling requirements. The amendments are intended to provide additional flexibility in administering the quality control provisions of the order and provide the industry with additional tools for the marketing of almonds.
This rule is effective August 5, 2008.
Martin Engeler, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102-B, Fresno, California 93721; Telephone: (559) 487-5110, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on this proceeding by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or e-mail:
Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on June 29, 2007, and published in the July 6, 2007, issue of the
This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing held on August 2, 2007, in Modesto, California. Notice of this hearing was issued on June 29, 2007, and published in the July 6, 2007, issue of the
The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part 900).
The Notice of Hearing contained two amendment proposals submitted by the Almond Board of California (Board), which is responsible for local administration of the order. Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on December 21, 2007, filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto by January 17, 2008. No exceptions were filed.
A Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order was issued on February 27, 2008, directing that a referendum be conducted during the period March 24 through April 11, 2008, among almond growers to determine whether they favored the proposed amendments to the order. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by at least two-thirds of those producers voting or by voters representing at least two-thirds of the volume of almonds represented by voters in the referendum. Each of the two proposed amendments were favored by at least 80 percent of the voters voting in the referendum.
The amendments approved by voters and included in this order will:
1. Authorize the establishment of different outgoing almond quality requirements for different markets; and
2. Authorize the establishment of container marking and labeling requirements.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also proposed to allow such changes as may be necessary to the order so that all of the order's provisions conform to the effectuated amendments. None were deemed necessary.
An amended marketing agreement was subsequently provided to all almond handlers in the production area for their approval. The marketing agreement was not approved by handlers representing at least 50 percent of the volume of almonds handled by all handlers during the representative period of August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.
Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers regulated under the order, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual
There are approximately 104 handlers of almonds subject to regulation under the order and approximately 6,000 producers of almonds in the regulated area. Information provided at the hearing indicates that approximately 50 percent of the handlers would be considered small agricultural service firms. According to data reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the two-year average crop value for 2005-06 and 2006-07 was $2.283 billion. Dividing that average by 6,000 producers yields average estimated producer revenues of $380,500, which suggests that the majority of almond producers would also be considered small entities according to the SBA's definition.
The order regulates the handling of almonds grown in the state of California. The California almond bearing acreage increased nearly 40 percent between 1996 and 2006, from 418,000 to 585,000 acres. Approximately 1.115 billion pounds (shelled basis) of almonds were produced during the 2006-07 season. Bearing acreage for the 2007-08 season is estimated to be 615,000 acres. NASS has forecasted that the 2007-08 crop will reach 1.330 billion pounds (shelled basis). More than two thirds of California's almond crop is exported to approximately 90 countries worldwide, and comprises nearly 80 percent of the world's almond supply.
Under the order, incoming and outgoing quality regulations are established, statistical information is collected, production research projects are conducted, and marketing research and generic promotion programs are sponsored. Program activities administered by the Board are designed to support large and small almond producers and handlers. The 10-member Board is comprised of both producer and handler representatives from the production area. Board meetings where regulatory recommendations and other decisions are made are open to the public. All members are able to participate in Board deliberations, and each Board member has an equal vote. Others in attendance at meetings are also allowed to express their views.
The Board's Food Quality and Safety Committee discussed the need for amendments to the order at meetings held on May 12, 2005; July 20, 2005; and November 1, 2006. The Board approved language for two proposed amendments to the order at their meeting on November 28, 2006. During a conference call on February 27, 2007, the Board confirmed that the two amendments should be proposed to USDA. The views of all participants were considered throughout this process.
In addition, the hearing to receive evidence on the proposed changes was open to the public and all interested parties were invited and encouraged to participate and provide their views.
The amendments are intended to provide the Board and the industry with additional flexibility in the marketing of California almonds. Record evidence indicates that the amendments are intended to benefit all producers and handlers under the order, regardless of size. There are no cost implications for handlers or growers from adding the new order authorities. Costs of implementation will be incurred only if specific additional requirements are established following future informal rulemaking. All grower and handler witnesses supported the amendments and commented on the implications of implementing specific requirements in the future. In that context, witnesses stated that they expected the benefits to be substantial and the costs of any future requirements to be minimal.
A description of the amendments and their anticipated economic impact on small and large entities is discussed below.
The record shows that the amendment adding authority to establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets will, in itself, have no economic impact on producers or handlers of any size. Regulations implemented under that authority could impose additional costs on handlers required to comply with them. However, witnesses testified that establishing mandatory regulations for different markets could increase the industry's credibility and reduce the risk that shipments of substandard product could jeopardize the entire industry's reputation. Record evidence shows that any additional costs are likely to be offset by the benefits of complying with those requirements.
Witnesses cited decreased delays and demurrage charges, as well as fewer rejected loads and increased customer confidence, as expected benefits. Recently, almonds have been rejected in the EU due to aflatoxin levels exceeding its importing tolerances. Information provided at the hearing shows that the rejection of a 44,000 pound container of almonds in the EU costs about $10,000, or 22.7 cents per pound. The cost includes demurrage for unanticipated delays at port, warehousing product while awaiting official import testing results, shipping rejected almonds back to the U.S., and shipping a replacement container back to the EU.
To reduce the risk of rejections, the California almond industry developed a voluntary aflatoxin testing protocol. Witnesses estimated that the cost of the pre-export testing, including the value of the sample, analytical fees, courier fees, and sampling labor is less than 2 cents per pound, which is less than 10 percent of the cost associated with a rejection. Proponents testified that if a requirement that all almonds destined for the EU be tested prior to shipment was established under authority provided by the order amendment, handlers would incur the cost of testing, but those costs would be expected to be more than offset by the reduced risk of rejections.
It's likely that most handlers are already complying with their customers' specific market requirements on a voluntary basis as a part of doing business, but witnesses explained that mandatory requirements lend credibility to the entire industry. In addition, such requirements could reduce the risk that one shipment of substandard product would jeopardize the entire industry's reputation.
Currently, outgoing quality requirements established under the order apply to all handler entities regardless of size. If regulations are established pursuant to this amendment, distribution of any increased costs between small and large entities would depend on the requirements established for the markets to which individual handlers shipped their almonds as well as the volume of almonds shipped to those markets. But increases in cost would be equitable to all entities because requirements for each market would be imposed uniformly on all handlers shipping to that market.
Witnesses explained that almonds are used in many different ways by the various markets. In Europe, almonds are widely used as marzipan and ingredients for baked goods, candy, and other dishes. In India and the Middle East, almonds are presented as gifts at holidays and weddings, and play a part in other cultural traditions. India imports large quantities of inshell almonds that are then processed by hand. The wide range of uses leads to a similarly wide array of customer requirements.
According to record testimony, handlers adapt their export methods to
Finally, one witness explained that having the ability under the order to establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets will not restrict handlers' choices regarding which markets to supply. Rather, the provision will ensure that the important standards that differentiate markets will be consistently met by all handlers shipping to those markets.
The second amendment adds § 981.43 to the order to provide general authority to establish container marking and labeling requirements. This amendment will allow the Board, through the informal rulemaking process, to recommend and establish uniform container marking and labeling regulations in response to evolving market requirements. Under previous order provisions, there is only very limited authority for container marking and labeling requirements.
Witnesses testified that the lack of this authority has hindered them from adapting quickly and appropriately to recent market situations. In one case described at the hearing, the industry was unable to implement container marking or labeling following recalls for possible
The amendment will allow the industry to respond to evolving market needs as they develop by establishing uniform and consistent marking and labeling requirements. According to proponents, the ability to communicate important product information to customers in a uniform and consistent manner will be essential as the industry strives to maintain its position in the expanding global marketplace.
If regulations are implemented pursuant to this amendment, costs of complying with any regulations established thereunder will not be disproportionate to small businesses. Witnesses testified that applying labels and marks to almond containers is currently a common practice, and industry handlers already have container marking processes and equipment in place. Therefore, the costs associated with the addition of uniform marking or labeling requirements will be minimal for both small and large entities. The record shows that any costs will likely be offset by the benefits derived from being more responsive to market demands.
Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small entities. The record evidence indicates that the amendments are intended to benefit all producers and handlers under the order, regardless of size. Further, the record shows that the costs associated with implementing regulations would be outweighed by the benefits expected to accrue to the California almond industry.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. These amendments are designed to enhance the administration and functioning of the order to the benefit the California almond industry.
Information collection requirements for part 981 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB Number 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. Implementation of these amendments will not trigger any changes to those requirements. Should any such changes become necessary in the future, they will be submitted to OMB for approval.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The amendments to Marketing Order 981 stated herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. The amendments will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with an amendment.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United Sates in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The findings and determinations set forth hereinafter are supplementary and in addition to the findings and determinations previously made in connection with the issuance of the order; and all of said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
(a)
Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon the proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 981 (7 CFR part 981), regulating the handling of almonds grown in California.
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, regulates the handling of almonds grown in the production area in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which hearings have been held;
(3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivision of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
(4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of almonds grown in the production area; and
(5) All handling of almonds grown in the production area is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
(b)
It is necessary and in the public interest to make these amendments effective not later than one day after publication in the
(c)
(1) Handlers (excluding cooperative associations of producers who are not engaged in processing, distributing, or shipping almonds covered by the order as hereby amended) who, during the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007, handled 50 percent or more of the volume of such almonds covered by said order, as hereby amended, have not signed an amended marketing agreement; and,
(2) The issuance of this amendatory order, further amending the aforesaid order, is favored or approved by at least two-thirds of the producers who participated in a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007 (which has been deemed to be a representative period), have been engaged within the production area in the production of such almonds, such producers having also produced for market at least two-thirds of the volume of such commodity represented in the referendum; and
(3) In the absence of a signed marketing agreement, the issuance of this amendatory order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers of almonds in the production area.
The provisions of the proposed order further amending the order contained in the Secretary's Decision issued by the Administrator on February 27, 2008, and published in the
Almonds, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(b) * * * The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets. * * *
The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish regulations to require handlers to mark or label their containers that are used in packaging or handling of bulk almonds. For purposes of this section,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplane. This airplane has a novel or unusual design feature, in that it features multiple electrical/electronic equipment bays that are located throughout the airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Stephen Happenny, FAA, Propulsion/Mechanical Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2147; facsimile 425-227-1232.
Embraer S.A., made the original application for certification of the Model ERJ 190 on May 20, 1999. The Embraer application includes six different models, the initial variant being designated as the Model ERJ 190-100. The application was submitted concurrently with that for the Model ERJ 170-100, which received an FAA type certificate (TC) on February 20, 2004. Although the applications were submitted as two distinct TCs, the airplanes share the same conceptual design and general configuration. On July 2, 2003, Embraer S.A., submitted a request for an extension of its original application for the Model ERJ 190 series, with a new application date of May 30, 2001, for establishing the type certification basis. The FAA certification basis was adjusted to reflect this new application date. In addition, Embraer has elected to voluntarily
On May 30, 2001, Embraer S.A., amended the application to include the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ. The Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ is a derivative of the Model ERJ 190 which is approved under Type Certificate No. A57NM. The Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ is a low wing, transport-category airplane powered by two wing-mounted General Electric CF34-10E6 turbofan engines. The airplane is a 19 passenger regional jet with a maximum takeoff weight of 54,500 kilograms (120,151 pounds). The maximum operating altitude and speed are 41,000 feet and 320 knots calibrated air speed (KCAS)/0.82 MACH, respectively. The Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ design includes multiple electrical/electronic equipment bays that are located throughout the airplane.
Under the provisions of § 21.101, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ meets the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A57NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.”
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
The Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Multiple electrical/electronic equipment bays located in the lower lobe and on the main deck of the airplane. These bays are an unusual design relative to those which have been previously certificated under 14 CFR part 25. The number and location of the electrical/electronic equipment bays on the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ may contribute to an increased risk of smoke affecting passengers and crew.
Section 25.855 contains the material standards and design considerations for cargo compartment interiors; the statement that each cargo compartment must meet one of the class requirements of § 25.857; and the flight tests which must be conducted for certification. Section 25.857 provides the standards for the various classes of transport category airplane cargo compartments including a smoke detector; means to shutoff the ventilating airflow; and a means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or fire extinguishing agent from penetrating into occupied areas of the airplane. Section 25.858 requires certain provisions be made for smoke detection. However, there are no requirements that address the following:
• Preventing hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating from the electrical/electronic equipment bays from penetrating into occupied areas of the airplane; or
• Installing smoke or fire detectors in electrical/electronic equipment bays.
Generally, transport category airplanes have one or two electrical/electronic equipment bays located in the lower lobe, adjacent to pressure regulator/outflow valves. If there were smoke in an electrical/electronic equipment bay, in most cases it is expected to be drawn toward the outflow valves and be discharged from the airplane without entering occupied areas. In the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ, the electrical/electronic equipment bays are distributed throughout the airplane. Only those equipment bays located in the lower lobe of the airplane are considered to be adjacent to pressure regulator/outflow valves.
For this combination of electrical/electronic equipment bays distributed throughout the airplane the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding smoke detection and control of smoke penetration. Based upon its review of incidents of smoke in the passenger cabin, the FAA determined that an airplane with electrical/electronic equipment bays located below, on, and above the main deck of an airplane presents a greater risk of smoke penetration than older designs with electrical/electronic bays only in the lower lobe adjacent to pressure regulator/outflow valves.
In the event of a fire, airplanes with older designs rely upon “trial and error” to determine whether the source of fire or smoke is in the electrical/electronic equipment bay. Typically, this involves the pilots following approved procedures in the Airplane Flight Manual. Those procedures may involve shutting down power to the avionics equipment in one electrical/electronic equipment bay and reconfiguring the airplane's environmental control system (e.g., shutting down the recirculation fan) to see whether the amount of smoke in the flightdeck or passenger compartment is reduced or eliminated. If these actions do not eliminate the smoke, the flight crew may turn the power back on in the one electrical/electronic equipment bay, shut it off in the other equipment bay, and reconfigure the environmental control system again to see whether the smoke is now reduced or eliminated.
This approach may be acceptable for airplanes with no more than two electrical/electronic equipment bays, both located in the lower lobe. In that case, there are only two options: The smoke or fire in an electrical/electronic equipment bay is in either one or the other. However, for an airplane with electrical/electronic equipment bays located below, on, and above decks, this approach is not sufficient, because—in the time it takes to determine the source of smoke—a fire could spread and the quantity of smoke could increase significantly.
Furthermore, the “trial and error” approach raises concern over the lack of informational awareness that a flight crew would have should smoke penetration occur. Many factors—including the airflow pattern, configuration changes in the environmental control system, potential leak paths, and location of outflow/regulator valves—would make it difficult to identify a smoke source, especially during flight or system transients, such as climbing/descending or changes in ventilation.
The FAA believes that smoke detectors are needed in all electrical/electronic equipment bays on the Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ to ensure that the flightcrew can make an informed decision as to the source of smoke and can shut down the specific electrical/
These special conditions, therefore, require that there be a smoke or fire detection system in each electrical/electronic equipment bay. They also include requirements to prevent propagation of hazardous quantities of smoke or fire extinguishing agent between or throughout the passenger cabins on the main deck and the upper deck.
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-08-04-SC for the Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes was published in the
During a review of the Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-08-04-SC for the Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes, the FAA noted that the proposed flight test special condition demonstrating that only a “small quantity” of smoke may enter an occupied area from an electrical/electronic equipment bay is not consistent with the “Discussion” section of the document. The “Discussion” section clearly states that electrical/electronic equipment bays located below, on, and above the main deck of an airplane present a greater risk of smoke penetration than older designs. The proposed flight test special condition was inadvertently limited to smoke penetration flight tests for electrical/electronic equipment bays located on the main deck of the airplane. The final special condition has been corrected to reflect the FAA's original intent to require smoke penetration flight tests from all electrical/electronic equipment bay locations.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes. Should Embraer S.A., apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1. Requirements to prevent propagation of smoke or extinguishing agents from entering the flight deck and passenger cabin:
(a) To prevent such propagation the following must be demonstrated: A means to prevent hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating from the electrical equipment bays from incapacitating passengers and crew.
(b) A “small quantity” of smoke may enter an occupied area only under the following conditions:
(1) The smoke enters occupied areas during system transients
(2) Penetration of the small quantity of smoke is a dynamic event, involving either dissipation or mobility. Dissipation is rapid dilution of the smoke by ventilation air, and mobility is rapid movement of the smoke into and out of the occupied area. In no case should there be formation of a light haze indicative of stagnant airflow, as this would indicate that the ventilation system is failing to meet the requirements of § 25.831(b).
(3) The smoke from a smoke source below the flight deck and passenger cabin must not rise above armrest height.
(4) The smoke from a source in an electrical/electronic equipment bay must dissipate rapidly via dilution with fresh air and be evacuated from the airplane. A procedure must be included in the Airplane Flight Manual to evacuate smoke from the occupied areas of the airplane. In order to demonstrate that the quantity of smoke is small, a flight test must be conducted which simulates the emergency procedures used in the event of a fire during flight, including the use of V
2. Requirement for fire detection in electrical/electronic equipment bays:
(a) A smoke or fire detection system compliant with §§ 25.858 and 25.855 must be provided that will detect fire/smoke within each electrical/electronic equipment bay.
(b) Each system must provide a visual indication to the flight deck within one minute after the start of a fire in an electrical/electronic equipment bay.
(c) Airplane flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with these requirements, and the performance of the smoke or fire detectors must be shown in accordance with guidance provided in the latest version of Advisory Circular 25-9, or other means acceptable to the FAA.
(d) A procedure to shut down all non-essential systems in the electrical/electronic equipment bays following a smoke detection in any electrical/electronic equipment bay must be included in the Airplane Flight Manual.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The state is incorporating revisions EPA made to its definition of volatile organic compound (VOC). This SIP revision adds one compound to the list of compounds that
This direct final rule will be effective October 3, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 3, 2008. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0003, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
EPA is approving an Illinois SIP revision that adds to the list of compounds that are exempt from being considered a VOC. On January 29, 2008, Illinois submitted its revised 35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) 211.7150(a), the state's VOC exemption list, with the addition of 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (HFE-7300), C
EPA evaluated the petition to list HFE-7300 as a negligibly reactive compound submitted by its manufacturer. On January 18, 2007, EPA's approval (72 FR 2193) of adding HFE-7300 to its list of compounds that are not considered VOCs was effective. The reactivity of this compound with the hydroxyl radical (OH), the primary way by which most organic compounds initially participate in atmospheric reactions that lead to ozone formation, was compared to the reactivity of ethane. The reactivity of ethane is the benchmark EPA considers in determining if an organic compound is negligibly reactive. For HFE-7300, the reactivity (k
Volatile organic compounds are precursors to ozone formation. Complex photochemical reactions involving VOCs form tropospheric ozone.
Ozone decreases lung function, causing chest pain and coughing. It can aggravate asthma, reduce lung capacity, and increase risk of respiratory diseases like pneumonia and bronchitis. Children playing outside and healthy adults who work or exercise outside may also be harmed by elevated ozone levels. Ozone also reduces vegetation growth in economically important agricultural crops and wild plants.
EPA has determined that HFE-7300 makes a negligible contribution to ozone formation. Thus, the compound is no longer considered to be a VOC for emission control purposes, and the exemptions will not harm air quality. In fact, if sources switch from the use of a VOC compound to one of the compounds that are no longer considered VOC, ozone formation may be reduced.
EPA is approving revisions to the Illinois SIP for ozone. This revision adds one compound to the list of compounds considered exempt from being a VOC compound. The compound HFE-7300 is added to the exempt compounds list. Illinois sources are not required to follow VOC limits or content requirements when using HFE-7300.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(182) On January 29, 2008, Illinois submitted revised regulations that are consistent with 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1), as amended by 72 FR 2193. The compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (HFE-7300) was added to the list of negligibly reactive compounds excluded from the definition of VOM in 35 IAC 211.7150(a).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental Protection, Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions, Subpart B: Definitions, Section 211.7150: Volatile Organic Matter (VOM) or Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), Subsection 211.7150(a). Effective January 16, 2008.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on May 22, 2008, to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submission revises the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) by amending and updating the definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations,” to refer to the 2007 edition.
This rule is effective on October 3, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by September 3, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0501 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
IDEM submitted the requested SIP revision on May 22, 2008.
IDEM held public hearings on October 3, 2007. IDEM did not receive any public comments concerning the SIP revision.
The State has requested that EPA approve revisions to 326 IAC 1-1-3 to update references to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 326 IAC 1-1-3.
We are approving a revision to the Indiana SIP to update the definition at 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the CFR”, to refer to the 2007 edition.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 October 3, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(188) The Indiana Department of Environmental Management submitted a revision to Indiana's State Implementation plan on May 22, 2008, to amend 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the Code of Federal Regulations”. The revision to 326 IAC 1-1-3 updates the references to CFR from the 2006 edition to the 2007 edition.
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
On February 13, 2008, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to request redesignation of the El Paso carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal also included a CO maintenance plan for the El Paso area and associated Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs). The maintenance plan was developed to ensure continued attainment of the CO NAAQS for a period of at least 10 years from the effective date of EPA approval of redesignation to attainment. In this action, EPA is approving the El Paso CO redesignation request and the maintenance plan with its associated MVEBs as satisfying the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990.
This rule is effective October 3, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0386, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section, (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-8542; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address
Throughout this document, whenever “we” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, El Paso was designated and classified as a moderate nonattainment area for CO because it did not meet the 8-hour CO NAAQS for this criteria pollutant (56 FR 56694). El Paso's classification as a moderate nonattainment area under sections 107(d)(4)(A) and 186(a) of the CAA imposed a schedule for attainment of the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.
The El Paso nonattainment area has unique considerations for CO attainment planning due to airshed contributions from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Section 179B of the 1990 CAA Amendments contains provisions for CO nonattainment areas affected by emissions emanating from outside the United States. Under CAA Section 179B, the EPA shall approve a SIP for the El Paso nonattainment area if the TCEQ establishes to the EPA's satisfaction that implementation of the plan would achieve timely attainment of the NAAQS but for emissions emanating from Ciudad Juarez. This provision prevents El Paso County from being reclassified to a higher level of nonattainment should monitors continue to record CO concentrations in excess of the NAAQS.
To meet the CAA attainment schedule of December 31, 1995, Texas submitted an initial revision to the SIP for the El Paso CO moderate nonattainment area in a letter dated September 27, 1995. This submittal, as well as a February 1998 supplemental submittal, included air quality modeling demonstrating that El Paso would attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, but for emissions emanating outside of the United States from Mexico. The EPA approved a revision to the Texas SIP submitted to show attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS in the El Paso CO nonattainment area under Section 179B provisions, as well as approving the El Paso area's CO emissions budget and a CO contingency measure requirement. The State submitted the revisions to satisfy Section 179B and Part D requirements of the CAA. This approval was published July 2, 2003 (68 FR 39457), and became effective September 2, 2003. TCEQ also submitted all the requirements for the moderate area classification and EPA approved them. See further discussion in Section II.B.2.
On January 20, 2006, the State of Texas submitted a revision to the SIP which consisted of a request for redesignation of the El Paso carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS, as well as an 8-hour CO maintenance plan to
In this action, we are approving a change in the legal designation of the El Paso area from nonattainment for CO to attainment, in addition to approving the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area in attainment for CO until 2020. Under the CAA, we can change designations if acceptable data are available and if certain other requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment unless:
(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the national ambient air quality standard;
(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);
(iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
(v) The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D of the CAA.
Before we can approve the redesignation request, we must decide that all applicable SIP elements have been fully approved. Approval of the applicable SIP elements may occur simultaneously with final approval of the redesignation request. The State of Texas has incorporated a CO maintenance plan into this submittal to satisfy the requirement of a fully approved maintenance plan for the area.
We have reviewed the El Paso CO redesignation request and maintenance plan and believe that approval of the request is warranted, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The following are descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements are being addressed.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The area is designated attainment for the 1-hour CO NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the 8-hour CO NAAQS for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (ppm), (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. Attainment of the 8-hour CO standard is not a momentary phenomenon based on short-term data. Instead, we consider an area to be in attainment if each of the 8-hour CO ambient air quality monitors in the area doesn't have more than one exceedance of the 8-hour CO standard over a one-year period. If any monitor in the area's CO monitoring network records more than one exceedance of the 8-hour CO standard during a one-year calendar period, then the area is in violation of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. In addition, our interpretation of the CAA and EPA national policy
The State of Texas' CO redesignation request for the El Paso area is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that are relevant to the redesignation request. As presented in Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the State's maintenance plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1999 through 2005 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the El Paso nonattainment area. We have evaluated the ambient air quality data and have determined that the El Paso area has not violated the 8-hour CO standard and continues to demonstrate attainment. The El Paso nonattainment area has quality-assured data showing no violations of the 8-hour CO NAAQS for the most recent consecutive two-calendar-year period (2006 and 2007). Therefore, we believe the El Paso area has met the first component for redesignation: Demonstration of attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note too that the State of Texas has also committed, in the maintenance plan, to continue the necessary operation of the CO monitoring network in compliance with 40 CFR Part 58.
To be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA. We interpret section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a redesignation to be approved by us, the State must meet all requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time of the submission of a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of a redesignation request, we don't need to consider other requirements of the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete redesignation request.
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. On July 2, 2003, we approved the El Paso CO element revisions to Texas's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (
Before the El Paso “moderate” CO nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of Part D. Under Part D, an area's classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of Part D sets forth the basic nonattainment
It is also worth noting that we interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further progress—RFP) and 172(c)(6) (other measures) as being irrelevant to a redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the standard.
For the section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirements, the CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that increased emissions will not result from any new or modified stationary major sources and a general offset rule. The State of Texas has an approved NSR program (
In Chapter 5, Section 5.5 of the maintenance plan, the State commits to the continued operation of the existing CO monitoring network according to applicable Federal regulations and guidelines (40 CFR part 58).
The relevant Subpart 3 provisions were created when the CAA was amended on November 15, 1990. The new CAA requirements for “moderate” CO areas, such as El Paso, required that the SIP be revised to include a 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)), contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)), corrections to existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs (CAA section 187(a)(4)), periodic emission inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)), and the implementation of an oxygenated fuels program (CAA section 211(m)(1)). Sections 187(a)(2), (6), and (7) do not apply to the El Paso area because its design value was below 12.7 ppm at the time of classification. How the State met these requirements and our approvals, are described below:
A. 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)): EPA approved an emissions inventory on September 12, 1994 (
B. Contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)): EPA approved the use of 46 tons per day in incremental CO reduction credits from the Texas low-enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, as fulfillment of the State's CO attainment contingency measure requirement for the El Paso nonattainment area under section 172(c)(9) on July 2, 2003 (
C. Corrections to the El Paso basic I/M program (CAA section 187(a)(4)): EPA approved the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC) I/M Program (which includes El Paso) on November 14, 2001 (
D. Periodic emissions inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)): The State submitted an initial revision to the SIP for the El Paso CO moderate nonattainment area in a letter dated September 27, 1995. This submittal, as well as a February 1998 supplemental submittal contained a commitment to submit emission inventory updates. TCEQ continues to submit the Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) every three years.
E. Oxygenated fuels program implementation (CAA section 211(m)): EPA approved the El Paso oxygenated fuels program on September 12, 1994 (
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k). As noted above, EPA previously approved SIP revisions for the El Paso CO nonattainment area that were required by the 1990 amendments to the CAA. In this action, we are also approving the maintenance plan proposed by the State, and the State's commitment to maintain an adequate monitoring network (contained in the maintenance plan). Thus, with this final rule to approve the El Paso redesignation request and maintenance plan, we will have fully approved the El Paso CO element of the SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions. The CO emissions reductions for El Paso, that are further described in Sections 3.5 and 5.4.2 of the El Paso maintenance plan, were achieved primarily through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), an oxygenated fuels program, and a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.
In general, the FMVCP provisions require vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle emission limitations for new vehicles in future years. These emission limitations are phased in (as a percentage of new vehicles manufactured) over a period of years. As new, lower emitting vehicles replace older, higher emitting vehicles (“fleet turnover”), emission reductions are realized for a particular area such as El Paso. For example, EPA promulgated lower hydrocarbon (HC) and CO exhaust
As stated in Section 5.4.2 of the maintenance plan, significant additional emission reductions were realized from El Paso's basic I/M program. The program requires annual inspections of vehicles at independent inspection stations. We note that further improvements to the El Paso area's basic I/M program, to meet the requirements of EPA's November 5, 1992, (57 FR 52950) I/M rule, and upgrading the I/M program to meet the requirements for a low-enhanced program, were approved by us into the SIP on November 14, 2001 (68 FR 39457).
Oxygenated fuels are gasolines that are blended with additives that increase the level of oxygen in the fuel and, consequently, reduce CO tailpipe emissions. TAC Title 30, Chapter 114, Section 114.100, “Oxygenated Fuels Program”, contains the oxygenated fuels provisions for the El Paso nonattainment area. This rule requires all El Paso area gas stations to sell fuels containing a 2.7% minimum oxygen content (by weight) during the wintertime CO high pollution season. The use of oxygenated fuels has significantly reduced CO emissions and contributed to the area's attainment of the CO NAAQS.
During the public comment process for State-level adoption of the maintenance plan, the Texas Oil and Gas Association (TXOGA) recommended removing the oxygenated fuels program as a control measure and establishing it as a contingency measure. Due to support for the oxygenated fuels program stated by the local governmental entities, the State chose to retain the program as a committed control measure as part of the redesignation request and maintenance plan. This rulemaking action involves EPA approval of the El Paso CO redesignation request and the associated maintenance plan submitted by the State. EPA only can act upon what a State has chosen to submit to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. EPA cannot usurp a state's primary role in establishing the SIP controls. Therefore, if EPA receives any comments about the removal of the oxygenated fuels program to the contingency measures plan, we shall not consider them as relevant comment to this rulemaking. Should the State consider removing the oxygenated fuels program to the contingency measures plan at a later date, another public hearing and comment period would be held as part of a separate rulemaking and SIP revision process.
We have evaluated the various State and Federal control measures, and believe that the improvement in air quality in the El Paso nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are permanent and enforceable.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt correction of a violation. In addition, we issued further maintenance plan interpretations in the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental” (57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, dated September 4, 1992 (hereafter the September 4, 1992 Calcagni Memorandum).
In this
EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) and the September 4, 1992 Calcagni Memorandum referenced above. Under our interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to attainment for CO may demonstrate future maintenance of the CO NAAQS either by showing that future CO emissions will be equal to or less than the attainment year emissions or by providing a modeling demonstration.
For the El Paso area, the State selected the emissions inventory approach for demonstrating maintenance of the CO NAAQS; however, the State also conducted “hot spot” CO modeling to demonstrate that CO exceedances are not currently occurring at a potential hot spot and will not occur at such locations in the future. The maintenance plan submitted by the TCEQ on February 13, 2008, includes comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the El Paso area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. The State selected 2002 as the year from which to develop the attainment year inventory and included a projection out to 2020. More detailed descriptions of the 2002 attainment year inventory and the projected inventory are documented in the maintenance plan in Chapter 2. Summary emission figures from the 2002 attainment year and the final maintenance year of 2020 are provided in Table 1 below.
As presented in Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the State's maintenance plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1999 through 2005 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the El Paso nonattainment area. To further demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS, the TCEQ agreed to additional “hot spot” modeling as requested by EPA on the basis of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) September 30, 1994 Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Redesignations Reference Document. The modeling was done specifically to address two concerns—the El Paso CO monitoring network has a limited number of sites, and therefore may not have identified all the hot spots in the El Paso area; and in the future, urban growth may increase mobile emissions enough to cause exceedances of the NAAQS.
The TCEQ performed CO modeling at a heavily utilized intersection to demonstrate that CO exceedances are not currently occurring at a potential hot spot and will not occur at that location in the future. A modeling protocol detailing hotspot selection, proposed model usage, and data analysis was submitted by the State on February 17, 2005, and was approved by EPA via a letter dated March 30, 2005. The modeling protocol and approach taken are detailed in Chapter 4 of the maintenance plan. As shown in Table 4-2 of the maintenance plan, the current (base) case hot spot analysis predicted a maximum 8-hour CO concentration of 7.8 ppm, and the 2020 future case analysis predicted a maximum 8-hour CO concentration of 2.0 ppm. Both of these values are below the 9 ppm NAAQS, and demonstrate current and projected compliance with the CO standard. A more detailed evaluation by EPA of this hot spot analysis is provided in the TSD.
As we noted above, total CO emissions were projected forward by the State for the year 2020. We note the State's approach for developing the projected inventory follows EPA guidance on projected emissions and we believe it is acceptable.
The TCEQ commits to maintain an appropriate air monitoring network for the El Paso area throughout the 10-year maintenance period. As required by 40 CFR part 58.20(d), TCEQ will consult with EPA in annual review of the air monitoring network to determine the adequacy of the CO monitoring network, whether or not additional monitoring is needed, and if/when monitor sites can be discontinued. The TCEQ also commits to adhere to data quality requirements as specified in 40 CFR part 58 Quality Assurance Requirements.
In El Paso County, there are eight monitoring sites, each of which has monitored attainment with the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 2002 through 2007. The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm based on the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour CO concentration measured at each monitor within an area. The standard is considered to be attained at 9.4 parts per million (ppm). The three most recent 8-hour CO design values for El Paso County are 6.4 ppm for 2005, 5.4 ppm for 2006, and 3.8 ppm for 2007.
Texas commits to track the progress of the maintenance plan by continuing to periodically update the emissions inventory (EI). It will compare the updated EIs against the projected 2020 EIs.
TCEQ also commits to continuing all the applicable control strategies, i.e., the measures approved into the El Paso SIP. For example, these measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), an oxygenated fuels program, and a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.
Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as satisfying the relevant requirements and we note that this final rulemaking approval will render the State's commitments federally enforceable.
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such measures. In the February 13, 2008 submittal, Texas specifies the contingency trigger as a violation of the 8-hour CO standard based upon air quality monitoring data from the El Paso monitoring network. In the event that a monitored violation of the 8-hour CO standard occurs in any portion of the maintenance area, the State will first analyze the data to determine if the violation was caused by actions outside TCEQ's jurisdiction (e.g., emissions from Mexico or another state) or within its jurisdiction. If the violation was caused by actions outside TCEQ's jurisdiction, TCEQ will notify the EPA. If TCEQ determines the violation was caused by actions within TCEQ's jurisdiction, TCEQ commits to adopt and implement the identified contingency measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 18 months.
The State specifically identifies the following contingency measures to reattain the standard:
• Vehicle idling restrictions.
• Improved vehicle I/M.
• Improved traffic control measures.
• Implementation of a vanpool program using Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) funds.
The maintenance plan indicates that the State may evaluate other potential strategies to address any future violations in the most appropriate and effective manner possible. Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided in the State's El Paso CO maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Texas has committed to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years after our approval of the redesignation. This provision for revising the maintenance plan is contained in Chapter 5, Section 5.1 of the El Paso CO maintenance plan.
The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan. EPA believes that the 8-hour CO maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by the State of Texas for the El Paso area meets the requirements of Section 175A of the CAA. For more information, please refer to our Technical Support Document.
Table 2-7 of the maintenance plan documents the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for the El Paso CO nonattainment area that has been established by this CO redesignation request. The MVEB is that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the SIP revision allocated to on-road mobile sources for a certain date for meeting the purpose of the SIP, in this case maintaining compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart T and part 93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs and projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas conform to the SIP. The motor vehicle emissions budget is one mechanism EPA has identified for demonstrating conformity. Upon the effective date of this SIP approval, all future transportation improvement programs and long range transportation plans for the El Paso area will have to show conformity to the budgets in this plan; previous budgets approved or found adequate will no longer be applicable.
Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. In accordance with EPA's adequacy process, these MVEBs were posted on EPA's adequacy Web site for public notice on March 19, 2008 and were open for comment until April 18, 2008. No comments were received during this period. Therefore, we are finding as adequate and approving the 29.66 tpd for 2020 and beyond, CO emissions budget for the El Paso area. Budget modeling was developed for TCEQ under contract by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), utilizing El Paso travel model datasets developed by the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization. The modeling incorporated three onroad source control strategies that apply in the El Paso area: The FMVCP, the El Paso Oxygenated Fuel Program, and the I/M program (both detailed in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2 of the maintenance plan).
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As stated above, the El Paso area has shown continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS since 1999 and has met the applicable Federal requirements for redesignation to attainment. The maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. No control measures in the El Paso SIP are being removed.
EPA is approving the redesignation of the El Paso area to attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS, as well as approving the El Paso area CO maintenance plan. We also are approving the associated MVEBs.
We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this Action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 October 3, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
Mississippi has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Mississippi. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Final authorization will become effective on October 3, 2008 unless EPA receives adverse written comment on or before September 3, 2008. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2007-1185 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may also view and copy Mississippi's application from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste Division, 101 W. Capital, Suite 100, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.
Otis Johnson, Permits and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; (404) 562-8481; fax number: (404) 562-9964; e-mail address:
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
We conclude that Mississippi's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Mississippi Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Mississippi has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Mississippi subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Mississippi has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits;
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Mississippi is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Mississippi initially received Final authorization on June 13, 1984, effective June 27, 1984 (49 FR 24377), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on August 17, 1988, effective October 17, 1988 (53 FR 31000), August 10, 1990, effective October 9, 1990 (55 FR 32624), March 29, 1991, effective May 28, 1991 (56 FR 13079), June 26, 1991, effective August 27, 1991 (56 FR 29589), May 11, 1992, effective July 10, 1992 (57 FR 20056), April 8, 1993, effective June 7, 1993 (58 FR 18162), October 20, 1993, effective December 20, 1993 (58 FR 54044), March 18, 1994, effective May 17, 1994 (59 FR 12857), June 1, 1995, effective July 31, 1995 (60 FR 28539), August 30, 1995, effective October 30, 1995 (60 FR 5718), February 23, 2005, effective April 25, 2005 (70 FR 8731).
On June 20, 2007, Mississippi submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Mississippi's revision consists of provisions promulgated July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2005, otherwise known as RCRA Clusters XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XV. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality adopted the rules for RCRA Clusters XI-XV effective May 25, 2006. We can now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Mississippi's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant Mississippi Final authorization for the following program changes:
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations were effective July 10, 2006.
There are no State requirements in this program revision considered to be more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.
Mississippi will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Mississippi is not yet authorized.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart Z for this authorization of Mississippi's program changes until a later date.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. 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
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b), of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Availability of preliminary draft rule language.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is making available preliminary draft rule language to amend its regulations concerning licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel. This proposed rulemaking includes changes that clarify the license term limits for dry storage cask Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) and independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) licenses, provide consistency between the general license requirements and the site-specific ISFSI license requirements, and allow part 72 general licensees to implement changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC (a “previously loaded cask”). More specifically, the proposed amendments would allow for longer initial and renewal terms for part 72 CoCs and licenses, clarify the general license storage term, clarify the difference between CoC “approval” and “renewal,” allow a licensee to apply the changes associated with a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask without express NRC approval, provided the cask then fully conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the amended CoC, and make certain administrative and clarification changes. The availability of the preliminary draft rule language is intended to inform stakeholders of the current status of the NRC's activities and solicit public comments on the information at this time.
Submit comments by August 31, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number, RIN 3150-AI09, in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC may post updates periodically under Docket ID [NRC-2008-0361] on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Keith K. McDaniel, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-5252, e-mail,
The preliminary draft rule language can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The goal of this rulemaking is to both clarify the license term limits for part 72 CoCs and licenses and to allow part 72 general licensees to implement changes authorized by an amended CoC to a previously loaded cask. The proposed changes would also provide consistency between the general license requirements and the site-specific ISFSI license requirements within 10 CFR part 72.
The NRC is making a preliminary version of the draft proposed rule language available to inform stakeholders of the current status of this proposed rulemaking. The NRC is inviting stakeholders to comment on the draft proposed rule language. The NRC specifically asks for stakeholder review and comment on the draft provisions in 72.212(b)(3)-(5) with regard to implementation of the requirements to allow a licensee to apply the changes authorized by an amended Certificate of Compliance to a previously loaded cask. This preliminary draft rule language may be subject to significant revisions during the rulemaking process. The NRC will review and consider any comments received for information only; the NRC will not respond to any comments received at this pre-rulemaking stage. As appropriate, the Statements of Consideration for the proposed rule will briefly discuss any substantive changes made to the proposed rule language as a result of
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
In-service experience has shown that a fracture of the gerotor pump of the A320 RAT [ram air turbine] may occur. This may lead to the non-operation of the RAT in case of an in-flight deployment.
The Non-Deployment or Non-Pressurization of the RAT, associated with a double engine failure or a total loss of normal electrical power generation constitutes an unsafe condition.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 3, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0034, dated February 20, 2008 [corrected February 21, 2008] (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
In-service experience has shown that a fracture of the gerotor pump of the A320 RAT [ram air turbine] may occur. This may lead to the non-operation of the RAT in case of an in-flight deployment.
The Non-Deployment or Non-Pressurization of the RAT, associated with a double engine failure or a total loss of normal electrical power generation constitutes an unsafe condition.
This AD mandates the replacement of the affected gerotor pump assembly, which will provide the required improved reliability of the RAT.
The implementation of this modification was originally managed by an AIRBUS monitoring campaign. However, the rate of installation of the modification by operators has not met the predicted target. As such and to ensure continued compliance with the certification requirements it is considered necessary to require compliance by use of [an] AD.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-29-1122, dated July 27, 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 758 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these 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 $303,200, or $400 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 September 3, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category; except airplanes on which AIRBUS Modification 27189 was done in production or AIRBUS Service Bulletin A320-29-1100 was done in service, and on which AIRBUS Modification 28413 was not done in production.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29: Hydraulic power.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
In-service experience has shown that a fracture of the gerotor pump of the A320 RAT [ram air turbine] may occur. This may lead to the non-operation of the RAT in case of an in-flight deployment.
The Non-Deployment or Non-Pressurization of the RAT, associated with a double engine failure or a total loss of normal electrical power generation constitutes an unsafe condition.
This AD mandates the replacement of the affected gerotor pump assembly, which will provide the required improved reliability of the RAT.
The implementation of this modification was originally managed by an AIRBUS monitoring campaign. However, the rate of installation of the modification by operators has not met the predicted target. As such and to ensure continued compliance with the certification requirements it is considered necessary to require compliance by use of [an] AD.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) of the RAT in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-29-1122, dated July 27, 2006.
(2) For airplanes on which a RAT with P/N 680203037 is installed that has a S/N between 0101 and 0354 inclusive: Before further flight, replace the gerotor pump assembly and re-identify the RAT in accordance with the service bulletin.
(3) For airplanes on which a RAT with P/N 680203037 is installed that does not have a S/N between 0101 and 0354 inclusive, or a RAT with a P/N other than P/N 680203037 is installed: No further action is required by this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0034, dated February 20, 2008 [corrected February 21, 2008], and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-29-1122, dated July 27, 2006, for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message “ENG 1 FIRE DETECT FAIL” that occurred on an in-service aircraft revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity is therefore not correctly monitored.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 3, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 5, 2007, we issued AD 2007-02-01, Amendment 39-14888 (72 FR 2177, January 18, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2007-02-01, we have determined that fire detector threshold tolerances for the affected airplanes do not identify the failure of one engine fire detector loop out of the two present on each engine. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0119, dated May 2, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message “ENG 1 FIRE DETECT FAIL” that occurred on an in-service aircraft revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity is therefore not correctly monitored.
Airworthiness Directive (AD) No 2006-0356-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-01] was initially issued to mandate the verification of the fire detection system integrity by a one time inspection.
The current AD mandates installation of two new fire monitoring units of an improved design, each one of them is capable of monitoring the integrity of both detectors on the associated engine.
Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 42 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these 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 $10,080, or $240 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 removing Amendment 39-14888 (72 FR 2177, January 18, 2007) and adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by September 3, 2008.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-01, Amendment 39-14888.
(c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 06 and from S/N 28 to 107 inclusive, without modification M2958 implemented.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26: Fire Protection.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message “ENG 1 FIRE DETECT FAIL” that occurred on an in-service aircraft revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity is therefore not correctly monitored.
Airworthiness Directive (AD) No 2006-0356-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-01] was initially issued to mandate the verification of the fire detection system integrity by a one time inspection.
The current AD mandates installation of two new fire monitoring units of an improved design, each one of them is capable of monitoring the integrity of both detectors on the associated engine.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 35 days after February 2, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-02-01), perform an engine fire detection integrity check as required by paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2006. Doing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) First, in the baggage compartment, on each mobile connector of the monitoring units (L320WG) and (R320WG), the equivalent resistance of the two engine detectors at the LH (left-hand) and the RH (right-hand) sides must be verified. According to findings, the corresponding system is either considered correct or incorrect.
(2) As a second step, if either one or both the LH and the RH system is (are) found to be incorrect, it is required to check the actual resistance of both detectors of the incorrect system(s) on the affected engine(s).
(3) Any faulty detector must be replaced prior to further flight.
(4) Actions done before February 2, 2007, in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, dated November 23, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(g) Unless already done, within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the two fire monitoring units having part number (P/N) 6342-01 and replace them with new ones having P/N 6342-02 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007. Doing the replacement terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0119, dated May 2, 2007, and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007, for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
It has been found the occurrence of failed bearings of the RAT [ram air turbine] generator, which may lead to a RAT generator failure. The RAT generator was designed to provide emergency electrical power to essential systems in case of loss of all other sources of aircraft AC electrical power.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 3, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2848; fax (425) 227-1149.
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 Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-12-01 and 2007-12-02, both effective January 24, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
It has been found the occurrence of failed bearings of the RAT [ram air turbine] generator, which may lead to a RAT generator failure. The RAT generator was designed to provide emergency electrical power to essential systems in case of loss of all other sources of aircraft AC electrical power.
EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletins 170-24-0041, Revision 01, dated August 28, 2007; and 190-24-0012, Revision 01, dated August 21, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 124 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,920, or $80 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 September 3, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 SE, -100 STD, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-100 IGW, -100 LR, -100 STD, -100 ECJ, -200 IGW, -200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes; certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24: Electrical power.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
It has been found the occurrence of failed bearings of the RAT [ram air turbine] generator, which may lead to a RAT generator failure. The RAT generator was designed to provide emergency electrical power to essential systems in case of loss of all other sources of aircraft AC electrical power.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 1,300 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, determine the P/N and S/N of the RAT. For airplanes on which a RAT having P/N 1703781 is installed, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-24-0041, Revision 01, dated August 28, 2007; or 190-24-0012, Revision 01, dated August 21, 2007; as applicable.
(i) For airplanes on which the S/N on the RAT is 0110, 0150, 0255, or 0354 through 0419: Before further flight, re-identify RAT P/N 1703781 to P/N 1703781A.
(ii) For airplanes on which the S/N on the RAT is 0005, 0101 through 0109, 0111 through 0149, 0151 through 0254, or 0256 through 0353: Within 6,000 flight hours or 26 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the RAT with a RAT having P/N 1703781A.
(2) Previous accomplishment of the re-identification or replacement of the RAT before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-24-0041 or 190-24-0012, both dated May 4, 2007, meets the requirements of (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2848; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-12-01 and 2007-12-02, both effective January 24, 2008, and EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-24-0041, Revision 01, dated August 28, 2007; and 190-24-0012, Revision 01, dated August 21, 2007; for related information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and Notice of Public Hearing.
This document contains proposed regulations amending the regulations under § 1.460 to provide guidance to taxpayers in the home construction industry regarding accounting for certain long-term construction contracts that qualify as home construction contracts under section 460(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and to provide guidance to taxpayers with long-term contracts under section 460(f) regarding certain changes in method of accounting for long-term contracts. This document also provides a notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.
Written comments must be received by November 3, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 5, 2008, at 10 a.m. must be received by November 13, 2008.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-120844-07), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604 Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20224. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-120844-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Brendan P. O'Hara, (202) 622-4920; concerning submission of comments, the hearing, or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Richard Hurst, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
This document contains a proposed amendment to the Income Tax Regulations, 26 CFR part 1, under section 460 and §§ 1.460-3, 1.460-4, 1.460-5 and 1.460-6 of the Income Tax Regulations. In general, section 460(a) requires taxpayers to use the percentage of completion method (PCM) to account for taxable income from any long-term contract. Section 460(e) exempts home construction contracts from the general requirement to use the percentage of completion method of accounting. Section 460(e)(6) defines a home construction contract to be any construction contract if 80 percent or more of the total estimated contract costs are reasonably expected to be attributable to the construction of (i) dwelling units contained in buildings containing 4 or fewer dwelling units, and (ii) improvements to real property directly related to such dwelling units and located on the site of such dwelling units. Section 460(e)(4) defines a construction contract to be any contract for the building, construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of, or the installation of any integral component to, or improvement of, real property.
These proposed regulations expand the types of contracts eligible for the home construction contract exemption and amend the rules for how taxpayer-initiated changes in methods of accounting to comply with the regulations under section 460 may be implemented.
The definition of a
As noted, section 460(a) requires that the income from any long-term contract be recognized using the percentage of completion method. However, taxpayers with contracts that meet the definition of a “home construction contract” are not required to use the percentage of completion method for those contracts and may use an exempt method. Exempt methods commonly used to account for home construction contracts include the completed contract method (CCM) and the accrual method.
Under section 460, a home construction contract includes any construction contract if 80 percent of the total estimated contract costs are reasonably expected to be attributable to the construction of improvements to real property directly related to qualifying dwelling units and located on the site of such dwelling units. Commentators have suggested that many contracts entered into by land developers in the home construction industry should fall within the definition of a home construction contract.
The proposed regulations expand the scope of the home construction contract exemption by providing that a contract for the construction of common improvements is considered a contract for the construction of improvements to real property directly related to the dwelling unit(s) and located on the site of such dwelling unit(s), even if the contract is not for the construction of any dwelling unit. Therefore, under the proposed regulations, a land developer that is selling individual lots (and its contractors and subcontractors) may have long-term construction contracts that qualify for the home construction contract exemption.
Under section 460, a home construction contract also includes any construction contract if 80 percent of the total contract costs are reasonably expected to be attributable to the construction of dwelling units contained in buildings containing four or fewer dwelling units. Section 460(e)(6) states that each townhouse or rowhouse shall be treated as a separate building, regardless of the number of townhouses or rowhouses physically attached to each other. In certain circumstances, the terms condominium
The proposed regulations expand what is considered a townhouse or rowhouse, for purposes of the home construction contract exemption, to include an individual condominium unit. This will have the effect of allowing each condominium unit to be treated as a separate building for purposes of determining whether the underlying contract qualifies as a home construction contract.
Under the current regulations under section 460, the appropriate severing of a home construction contract requires a facts and circumstances analysis based upon certain factors that are neither specific nor always relevant to home construction contracts. Likewise, the date a home construction contract is considered completed and accepted is determined using a facts and circumstances analysis.
The IRS and Treasury Department are aware of controversies related to the application of the existing facts and circumstances analyses for determining the appropriate severance and final completion and acceptance of home construction contracts accounted for using the completed contract method. Expanding the definition of a home construction contract as provided in these proposed regulations may heighten the significance of these issues. As a result, the IRS and Treasury Department expect to propose specific severing and completion rules for home construction contracts accounted for using the completed contract method. Taxpayers are encouraged to submit comments on the types of severing and completion rules that would result in the clear reflection of income for home construction contracts accounted for using the completed contract method. Specifically, the IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the circumstances (if any) in which it would not be appropriate to require severing and completion of a home construction contract to be determined on a dwelling unit by dwelling unit or lot by lot basis or, when a contract is not for the sale of a dwelling unit or lot, on the basis of when the taxpayer receives payment(s) under the contract.
Currently, the regulations under section 460 provide that a taxpayer that uses the percentage-of-completion method (PCM), the exempt-contract percentage-of-completion method (EPCM), or elects the 10-percent method or special alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) method, or that adopts or elects a cost allocation method of accounting (or changes to another method of accounting with the Commissioner's consent) must apply the method(s) consistently for all similarly classified contracts until the taxpayer obtains the Commissioner's consent under section 446 to change to another method of accounting. The regulations further provide that a taxpayer-initiated change in method of accounting will be permitted only on a cut-off basis (that is, for contracts entered into on or after the year of change), and thus, a section 481(a) adjustment will not be permitted nor required. The proposed regulations continue this cut-off method of implementation but only for taxpayer-initiated changes from a permissible PCM method to another permissible PCM method for long-term contracts for which PCM is required and for taxpayer-initiated changes from a cost allocation method of accounting that complies with the cost allocation rules of § 1.460-5 to another cost allocation method of accounting that complies with the cost allocation rules of § 1.460-5. Under the proposed regulations all other taxpayer-initiated changes in method of accounting under section 460 will be made with a section 481(a) adjustment.
The proposed regulations provide that in determining the hypothetical underpayment or overpayment of tax for any year as part of the look-back computation, amounts reported as section 481(a) adjustments shall generally be taken into account in the tax year or years they are reported. For purposes of determining whether there is a hypothetical underpayment or overpayment of tax under the look-back computation, a taxpayer would use amounts reported under its old method for the years the old method was used and would use amounts reported under its new method for the years the new method was used, netted against the amount of any section 481(a) adjustments required to be taken into account. Thus, a look-back computation would not be required upon contract completion simply because the taxpayer has changed its method of accounting. However, a look-back computation would be required upon contract completion if actual costs or the contract price differ from the estimated amounts notwithstanding the fact a change in method of accounting occurred. For example, if a taxpayer using PCM changed its method of accounting for construction costs incurred in a contract reported under PCM, the section 460 look-back would be computed using the costs recognized prior to the year of change (reported under the taxpayer's old method of accounting) and the costs recognized in subsequent years using the new method of accounting, netted against any applicable section 481(a) adjustment. Similarly, for changes in methods of accounting where no costs were recognized under the old method of accounting (for example, a change in method of accounting from CCM to PCM), look-back would effectively only apply to years in which the taxpayer's new method of accounting was used to the extent that no costs were recognized prior to the year of change under the old method of accounting. This approach to the look-back computation is consistent with the underlying purpose of look-back as well as the general accounting method change procedures. Comments are specifically requested with respect to issues that taxpayers may foresee with respect to the rules provided in these proposed regulations for taking into account section 481(a) adjustments in the year reported for purposes of the look-back computation.
These regulations are proposed to apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the
It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code,
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original with eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 5, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m., in the auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit electronic or written comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by November 13, 2008. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
The principal author of these regulations is Brendan P. O'Hara, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
1. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
2. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) as paragraphs (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv) and (b)(2)(v), respectively, and revising them.
3. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Construction contract, other than a home construction contract, that a taxpayer estimates (when entering into the contract) will be completed within 2 years of the contract commencement date, provided the taxpayer satisfies the $10,000,000 gross receipts test described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B)
(v)
1. Revising the third sentence in paragraph (c)(1).
2. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (g)(1) and revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1).
3. Adding a paragraph (g)(2).
4. Revising
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * * Permissible exempt contract methods are the PCM, the EPCM described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the CCM described in paragraph (d) of this section, the accrual method, and any other permissible method. * * *
(g)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(h) * * *
1. Adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph (c)(2).
2. Revising paragraph (g).
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * * Further, this election is not available if a taxpayer is changing from a cost allocation method other than as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, in which case the taxpayer must follow the procedures under § 1.446-1(e) for obtaining the Commissioner's consent for the change in method of accounting.
(g)
1. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(vii).
2. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(iv) as paragraph (d)(2)(v).
3. Adding a new paragraph (d)(2)(iv).
The additions and revision read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(vii)
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The state is incorporating revisions EPA made to its definition of volatile organic compound (VOC). This SIP revision adds one compound to the list of compounds that are exempt from being considered a VOC. This is because it was determined that the listed compound does not contribute to ozone formation.
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0003, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management on May 22, 2008, to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submission revises the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) by amending and updating the definition of “References to Code of Federal Regulations,” to refer to the 2007 edition.
In the final rules section of this
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0501 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to correct its June 12, 2006, approval of a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone in which it approved Indiana's exclusion of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE), a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), as a revision to the SIP. As discussed further below, this proposed action is based upon the fact that HAPs are regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). State programs related to HAPs are governed by Section 112(l) of the Act and should not be included in the SIP under Section 110, which addresses national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. Therefore, pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act, which allows EPA to correct SIP actions made in error, EPA is proposing to rescind its exclusion of EGBE from Indiana's ozone SIP. It should be noted that EPA delisted EGBE as a HAP on November 29, 2004.
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0004, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Section 110 of the Act is the authority under which Congress has directed EPA to act on SIPs and SIP revisions. Section 110(a) establishes the applicable procedures for SIP development and submission. The trigger for these activities is the promulgation of NAAQS; and the focus of the State's efforts is to develop “a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1). EPA must then determine whether the submission contains the air quality-related components prescribed in section 110(a)(2).
Other than for lead, which is both a HAP and criteria pollutant, Section 110 does not provide parameters to determine the approvability of a HAP provision. Instead, in the 1990 Amendments to the Act, Congress envisioned that HAPs (including the then-listed EGBE) would be regulated under section 112. State programs for hazardous pollutants, including delegations, are governed by section 112(l) of the Act. They should not be included in the SIP under section 110. EPA is, therefore, proposing to correct its June 12, 2006, approval of Indiana's requested revision to delete EGBE from the definition of “hazardous air pollutant” in 326 IAC 1-2-33.5.
Section 110(k)(6) of the Act provides that whenever EPA determines that its action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), * * * was in error, EPA may revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Therefore, under section 110(k)(6), EPA is rescinding its exclusion of EGBE from Indiana's definition of HAP, as well as Indiana's definition of HAP in 326 IAC 1-2-33.5, from Indiana's ozone SIP.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to correct an error and to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to correct an error and approve 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Hazardous air pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On February 13, 2008, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to request redesignation of the El Paso carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal also included a CO maintenance plan for the El Paso area and associated Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs). The maintenance plan was developed to ensure continued attainment of the CO NAAQS for a period of 10 years from the effective date of EPA approval of redesignation to attainment. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the
Written comments must be received by September 3, 2008.
Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-8542; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address
This document proposes to take action on SIP revisions pertaining to the El Paso area. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revisions in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If we receive no relevant adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive relevant adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX is making a tentative determination to approve a research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) project at the Salt River Landfill, a commercial municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and operated by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa County Indian Community (SRPMIC) on the SRPMIC reservation in Arizona. EPA is seeking public comment on EPA's tentative determination to approve SRPMIC's RD&D project. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), EPA is also seeking public comment on EPA's proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE), the proposed finding that the Arizona Canal is the sole historic property within the APE, and the proposed finding that the RD&D project will not adversely affect the Arizona Canal.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2008. If sufficient public interest is expressed, EPA will hold a public hearing at 11 a.m. on September 30, 2008. If by September 18, 2008, EPA does not receive information indicating sufficient public interest for a public hearing, EPA may cancel the public hearing with no further notice. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Karen Ueno at (415) 972-3317 to verify that a hearing will be held.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0354 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
2. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
3. Docket Copying Costs. Copying arrangements will be made through the Docket Facility and billed directly to the recipient. Copying costs may be waived depending on the total number of pages copied.
If sufficient public interest is expressed, EPA will hold a public hearing at 11 a.m. on September 30, 2008 in Conference Room A of the offices of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 400 North 5th Street, Phoenix, Arizona.
Karen Ueno, Waste Management Division, WST-7, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone number: (415) 972-3317; fax number: (415) 947-3530; e-mail address:
Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), EPA established revised minimum federal criteria for MSWLFs, including landfill location restrictions, operating standards, design standards and requirements for ground water monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Under RCRA section 4005, states are to develop permit programs for facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators, and EPA determines whether the program is adequate to ensure that facilities will comply with the revised criteria.
The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 258. These regulations are self-implementing and apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. For many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 258 includes a flexible performance standard as an alternative to the self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard is not self-implementing, and use of the alternative standard requires approval by the Director of an EPA-approved state.
Since EPA's approval of a state program does not extend to Indian country, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those facilities subject to an approved state program. However, the EPA has the authority under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules that may provide for use of alternative standards. See
On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule at 40 CFR 258.4 amending the municipal solid waste landfill criteria to allow for RD&D permits. (69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period of time. Specifically, the rule allows for the Director of an approved state to issue a time-limited RD&D permit for a new MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF unit, or lateral expansion, for which the owner or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods which vary from either or both of the following: (1) The run-on control systems at 40 CFR 258.26(a)(1); and/or (2) the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 258.28(a), provided that the MSWLF unit has a leachate collection system designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of leachate on the liner. The rule also allows for the issuance of a time-limited RD&D permit for which the owner or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods that vary from the final cover criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and (b)(1), provided that the owner or operator demonstrates that the infiltration of liquid through the alternative cover system will not cause contamination to groundwater or surface water, or cause leachate depth on the liner to exceed 30 cm. RD&D permits must include such terms and conditions at least as protective as the criteria for MSWLFs to assure protection of human health and the environment. An RD&D permit cannot exceed three years and a renewal of an RD&D permit cannot exceed three years. Although multiple renewals of an RD&D permit can be issued, the current total term for an RD&D permit including renewals cannot exceed twelve years. In adopting the RD&D rule, EPA stated that RD&D facilities in Indian country could be approved in a site-specific rule.
The Salt River Landfill is a municipal solid waste landfill owned and operated by the SPRMIC on the SRPMIC's reservation in Arizona. The landfill site is approximately 200 acres. The Salt River Landfill has been in operation since October 1993 and serves as a solid waste collection and disposal point for Maricopa County, Arizona. The landfill consists of 8 disposal cells within 6 waste disposal areas. The latter are identified as Phases I—VI. Phase VI is divided into three cells: VIA, VIB, and
In January 2005, the SRPMIC submitted a site-specific flexibility application request to EPA for the Salt River Landfill. The request is twofold. It seeks EPA approval to use innovative and new methods which vary from the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 258.28(a), as allowed by EPA's RD&D regulations at 40 CFR 258.4. It also seeks approval to install an alternative bottom liner, as allowed by EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 258.40. Specifically, SRPMIC is seeking to install an alternative bottom liner system in and to operate Phase VI as a below grade anaerobic bioreactor. SRPMIC is also seeking to add certain liquids to two existing waste disposal cells within the landfill, Phase IIIB and Phase IVA, which were constructed with an alternative bottom liner system previously approved by EPA (63 FR 68453, Dec. 11, 1998).
Between January 2005 and April 2008, the SRPMIC made revisions to its application request in response to concerns raised by EPA. EPA is basing its tentative determination and this proposed rule on the application, dated September 24, 2007, and the April 2008 amendments to that application. The specific requests for EPA approval in SRPMIC's application are discussed below. As set forth in more detail below, EPA is proposing to approve the request and allow SRPMIC to install an alternative bottom liner system in Phase VI, and to operate Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA using innovative and new methods which vary from the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 258.28(a). This tentative determination is based on 40 CFR 258.40 and 40 CFR 258.4, respectively.
The SRPMIC is seeking EPA approval to use an alternative bottom liner system in each of the Phase VI cells (Phase VIA, B, and C). SRPMIC proposes to replace the 24-inch compacted clay liner of the composite liner system with a geosynthetic clay liner. As provided in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1), SRPMIC must ensure that the alternative liner system does not allow the concentration of the chemicals listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 258.40 to be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance, as specified by EPA.
To create bioreactor conditions in Phase VI, SRMPIC is also seeking EPA approval to recirculate leachate and landfill gas condensate, and to add storm water and groundwater. A bioreactor uses large amounts of liquids to accelerate the biodegradation of waste by increasing the moisture content of the waste. In turn, enhanced biodegradation is expected to increase the capacity of the cell and extend its operating life. Without approval as provided in the RD&D rule, MSWLFs are restricted from adding bulk or noncontanerized liquids to cells, and from recirculating leachate and landfill gas in cells designed with alternative liner systems.
SRPMIC proposes to recirculate leachate and landfill gas condensate, and to add storm water and groundwater to the Phase VI cells. Only these types of liquids will be added to Phase VI, and only to the below grade portions of this Phase. SRPMIC will introduce these liquids into Phase VI using two methods: Moisture addition at the working face of the cells, and moisture addition through a series of below-grade horizontal pipe galleries. The horizontal pipe galleries will be constructed below-grade as landfilling progresses in Phase VI. Each horizontal pipe gallery will first be used to collect landfill gas before being converted to a liquids addition pipe gallery. The conversion to liquids addition will not occur until the pipe gallery above it is installed and collecting landfill gas. SRPMIC will install at least two layers of horizontal pipe galleries in the above-grade portion of Phase VI. These above-ground horizontal pipe galleries will be for the sole purpose of collecting gas.
SRPMIC will monitor for fugitive gas emissions at least annually using ground-based optical remote sensing in accordance with EPA's approved method (EPA OTM-10). Increases to fugitive gas emission are a concern with bioreactor operations due to the enhanced biological degradation of the solid waste and the associated rise in the amount of gas generated. SRPMIC will monitor for fugitive emission and use this and other monitoring and operating information collected to better project the amount of landfill gas generated and the performance of the landfill gas collection system.
In addition to increasing the amount of gas generated, bioreactors increase the amount of leachate produced. SRPMIC's design for Phase VI includes a separate leachate collection and recovery system in each of the three cells to support the increase in leachate production associated with bioreactor operation. SRPMIC performed modeling to estimate peak leachate depth on the liner to help ensure that the federal regulatory limit of less than 30-cm would be maintained. The leachate collection system is equipped with an alarm that is triggered in response to any depth of leachate on the liner outside of the sump (for example, if the sump is not fully draining).
SRPMIC will collect data and results related to the operation of Phase VI, including the quality and quantity of gas and leachate generated, and the efficiency of the landfill gas and leachate capture systems. As stated in SRPMIC's application of September 24, 2007, and the April 2008 amendments to that application, an overarching goal is to demonstrate that the proposed operation of Phase VI does not increase risk to human health and the environment over a standard MSWLF permit.
SRPMIC is seeking EPA approval to add certain liquids to below-grade portions of two existing cells, Phases IIIB and IVA, each of which were constructed using an alternative bottom liner system previously approved by EPA (63 FR 68453, December 11, 1998). As noted, above, without approval as provided in the RD&D rule, MSWLFs are restricted from adding bulk or noncontanerized liquids to cells, and from recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate in cells designed with alternative liner systems.
SRPMIC proposes to add liquids to Phases IIIB and IVA, but does not intend to increase the moisture content of the solid waste mass to a bioreactor level (40 CFR 63.1990 defines “bioreactor” as reaching a minimum average moisture content of at least 40% by weight). SRPMIC is seeking to add only 25% of the liquids volume that would be needed to increase moisture content to 40%. SRPMIC proposes to increase the moisture content of the waste mass by recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and by adding storm water and groundwater. Only these types of liquids will be added to Phases IIIB and IVA, and only to the below grade portions of these Phases.
SRPMIC will add the liquids using the existing gas collection pipes in these cells. Field practice and research have shown that using the same pipe galleries to both collect gas and distribute liquids can negatively affect the gas collection efficiency of the pipes. SRPMIC will monitor the gas flow. If the gas flow rate drops below 50% of the pre-liquids
As proposed for Phase VI, SRPMIC will monitor for fugitive gas emission and use this and other monitoring and operating information to better project the amount of landfill gas generated and the performance of the landfill gas collection system. SRPMIC will collect data and results related to the operation of Phases IIIB and IVA, including the quality and quantity of gas and leachate generated, and the efficiency of the landfill gas and leachate capture systems.
SRPMIC has performed modeling to determine how much liquid can be added annually to Phases IIIB and IVA to, among other things, keep the depth of leachate on the liner to less than 30 cm as required by the federal regulations. SRPMIC is required to suspend adding liquids to Phases IIIB and IVA if operating parameters are not being met, including depth of leachate on the liner at or over 30 cm, ponding, gas collection difficulty, and seeps. As stated in SRPMIC's application of September 24, 2007, and the April 2008 amendments to that application, an overarching goal is to demonstrate that the proposed operation of Phase IIIB and IVA does not increase risk to human health and the environment over a standard MSWLF permit.
To further reduce the potential risk posed by increased liquids addition and leachate generation from Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA, SRPMIC will install a new groundwater monitoring network of 7 wells. The network will be used to monitor the uppermost portion of the aquifer for changes to groundwater elevation and quality. SRPMIC shall maintain at least a 25-foot separation zone between the bottom of the landfill and groundwater. SRPMIC will also monitor liquids balance (how much liquid is being deposited into the landfill compared to how much is being collected), mass balance (the mass of the materials deposited into the landfill, compared to the mass of what is being collected), and waste volume and settlement.
After completing a review of SRPMIC's final site-specific flexibility application request, dated September 27, 2007, and the amendments to that application, dated April 2008, EPA is proposing to approve SRPMIC's site-specific flexibility request to: (1) Install an alternative bottom liner system in Phase VI and to operate Phase VI as an anaerobic bioreactor by recirclating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and adding storm water and groundwater to the below grade portions of Phase VI; and (2) recirculate leachate and landfill gas condensate and add storm water and groundwater to the below grade portions of Phases IIIB and IVA to increase the moisture content of the waste mass in these phases, both of which have previously EPA-approved alternative bottom liner systems.
EPA is basing its tentative determination on a number of factors, including SRPMIC's overarching goal to demonstrate protection of human health and the environment, and the requirement of today's rule to maintain less than 30-cm depth of leachate on the liner.
EPA considered certain issues pertaining to the proposed RD&D project, including the potential for increased leachate production and increased landfill gas generation and fugitive emissions from operation of the bioreactor. With respect to the potential for increased leachate production, SRPMIC performed modeling to project the impact of liquids addition on the liner and peak leachate production rates, and to assess the adequacy of the leachate collection system design capacity. This modeling demonstrated that the leachate collection system is designed to appropriately handle the amount of anticipated leachate and that the increase in liquids should not adversely affect the performance of the liner system in protecting groundwater. SRPMIC will also maintain a 25-foot or greater separation zone between the bottom of the landfill and the top of the groundwater aquifer. SRPMIC will routinely monitor leachate quantity and quality, liquids balance, volume and settlement of the waste, and groundwater quality and levels. By monitoring, SRPMIC will be able to ensure effective and protective ongoing operations of these Phases of the landfill and provide data for EPA to use in its ongoing RD&D study.
With respect to the potential for increased landfill gas generation and fugitive gas emissions, SRPMIC will ensure that each horizontal pipe gallery in Phase VI will be used to collect landfill gas before being converted for liquids addition to reduce the risk of negatively affecting the gas collection efficiency of the pipe gallery. No pipe gallery will be converted to liquids addition until the pipe gallery above it is installed and collecting landfill gas. SRPMIC also will install at least two layers of horizontal pipe galleries in the above-grade portion of Phase VI for the sole purpose of collecting gas. To further reduce the risk of increased landfill gas generation and fugitive emissions, SRPMIC will only add liquids to the below-grade portions of Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA. SRPMIC will monitor fugitive gas emissions annually or more frequently, as appropriate, using ground-based optical remote sensing (EPA OTM-10), and will routinely monitor landfill gas quantity and quality. Using information gained from the monitoring program, SRPMIC will propose site-specific input parameters to EPA that improve modeling calculations for the amount of landfill gas generated and the performance of landfill gas collection systems.
In the event that EPA determines that the project goals are not being attained, including protecting human health and the environment, EPA may terminate SRPMIC's authority to operate the RD&D project.
As part of this tentative determination, and in accordance with 40 CFR 258.4, EPA is proposing to require SRPMIC to maintain less than 30 cm depth of leachate on the liner in Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA, and to ensure that the approved operation of these Phases is protective of human health and the environment. For purposes of the alternative liner system in Phase VI, the relevant point(s) of compliance pursuant to 40 CFR 258.40 will be determined by EPA and shall be no more than 150 meters from the waste management cell boundaries and located on land owned by the owner of the cells.
In accordance with its application, SRPMIC will submit annual reports to EPA that summarize and show whether and to what extent RD&D project goals are being achieved. The annual report will include a summary of all monitoring and testing results. Any deviations from the September 27, 2007 application, and the April 2008 amendments to that application, must continue to conform to the standards set forth in 40 CFR 258.4 and require the prior approval of EPA.
Also in accordance with its application, SRPMIC will arrange for independent, third party inspections of the RD&D operations on a quarterly basis throughout the term of the RD&D approval. Copies of the report will be submitted to EPA.
The tentative determination would allow operation of the subject Phases of the landfill consistent with the RD&D rule for a total of 12 years. However, the owner or operator of the landfill must seek a renewal of this authority every
As part of the NHPA process, EPA is proposing a
In accordance with the NHPA, EPA consulted with SRPMIC's Archaeology Department, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Salt River Project, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and nearby certified local governments on SRPMIC's RD&D request and reviewed the NHPA requirements. EPA provided the following tribes, who may have a cultural or historic interest within the proposed APE, with an opportunity to identify such cultural or historic properties: Ak-Chin Indian Community; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation; Gila River Indian Community; Hopi Tribe; Pascua Yaqui Tribe; Tohono O'odham Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. No cultural or historic property was identified by these tribes, nor was any interest expressed to further consult with EPA.
Only one historic property, the Arizona Canal, has been identified within the proposed APE. The Arizona Canal and associated access roads and banks are the property of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Construction of the Arizona Canal began in 1883. It is a concrete-lined structure that continues to distribute water for domestic and irrigation uses in Maricopa County. The canal banks support a variety of non-motorized recreation activities, such as hiking, bicycling, walking, and jogging.
The northern border of the Salt River Landfill is adjacent to the Arizona Canal. An eight-foot fence separates the landfill and the canal, and at its closest proximity, the fence is approximately 50 feet away from the canal. An additional 10-30 feet separates the fence from the proposed locations of the new groundwater wells nearest to the canal. Recreational use of the canal is restricted and minimized in the vicinity of the SRPMIC border.
The proposed SRPMIC RD&D project could potentially impact the Arizona Canal in three ways: (1) Off-site migration of leachate, (2) disturbance from the installation of the 7 new groundwater monitoring network wells, and (3) fugitive gas emissions.
It is not likely that there would be off-site migration of leachate via the groundwater or surface water pathways. With respect to the groundwater pathway, SRPMIC will maintain a 25-foot or greater zone of separation between the bottom of the landfill and the top of the aquifer to prevent leachate from coming into contact with groundwater. Each waste cell is or will be equipped with a bottom liner and leachate collection system to further reduce the risk of off-site leachate migration. With respect to the surface water pathway, the leachate retention pond has the estimated capacity to accommodate the additional leachate projected to be generated from Phases VI, IIIA, and IVB, even when leachate is not being recirculated back into the landfill. Stormwater is retained on-site and stormwater retention capacity will continue to be increased by SRPMIC throughout the life of the landfill. The canal, itself, is protected by berms and is at a higher elevation than the landfill. Surface water from the landfill does not flow towards the canal.
The installation of 7 new groundwater monitoring wells should not have an adverse impact on the canal. The noise, equipment, vehicles, and possible dust associated with installing wells should not affect recreation use of the canal because the installation process is short-term, and recreation use is restricted and minimized along the SRPMIC border. In addition, the proposed well locations and the canal are separated by an eight-foot fence and a distance of 60 feet or more. Because surface water does not move from the landfill towards the canal, and because storm water is retained on-site, it is not likely that loosened sediment from ground disturbance would find a ready pathway to the canal.
Increased gas generation and emissions should not negatively impact the canal, as the canal is made of concrete, an inert building material. As required by EPA approval of the proposed RD&D project, each of the waste cells have or will have a gas collection and control system, and SRPMIC will routinely monitor the quality and quantity of landfill gas and fugitive emissions, and assess collection efficiency. The gas that is collected will be destroyed at the landfill's flare station or converted into energy. To the extent there are increased fugitive emissions, recreational use of the canal should not be adversely affected since there are few, if any, such uses along the SRPMIC border of the canal.
Pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA, EPA has reviewed SRPMIC's site-specific flexibility request to take into account the effect of the proposed RD&D project on historic properties. EPA requests public comment on its proposed
Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (
EPA consulted with the SRPMIC early in the process of making this tentative determination to approve the Tribe's RD&D project so as to give them meaningful and timely input into the determination. In 2005, SRPMIC submitted its site-specific RD&D flexibility request. Between 2005 and 2008, many technical issues were raised and addressed concerning SRPMIC's proposal. EPA's consultation with the Tribe culminated in the SRPMIC submitting an RD&D application amendment in April of 2008.
With respect to the type of flexibility being afforded to SRPMIC under this proposed rule, Executive Order 13175 does provide for agencies to review applications for flexibility “with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the Indian tribal level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with the applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.” In formulating this tentative determination and proposed rule, the Region has been guided by the fundamental principles set forth in Executive Order 13175 and has granted the SRPMIC the “maximum administrative discretion possible” within the standards set forth under the RD&D rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175.
EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this tentative determination from tribal officials of the SRPMIC.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (
The technical standards included in the application were proposed by SRPMIC. Given EPA's obligations under Executive Order 13175 (see above), the Agency has, to the extent appropriate, applied the standards established by the Tribe. In addition, the Agency considered the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council's February 2006 technical and regulatory guideline “Characterization, Design, Construction, and Monitoring of Bioreactor Landfills.”
Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6944, and 6949a. Temporary Delegation of Authority to Promulgate Site-Specific Rules to Respond to Requests for Flexibility from Owners/Operators of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities in Indian Country, February 26, 2008, Incorporation by Reference.
Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).
2. Amend subpart D by adding § 258.42 to read as follows:
(a) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), Salt River Landfill Research, Development, and Demonstration Project Requirements. Paragraph (a) of this section applies to the Salt River Landfill, a municipal solid waste landfill owned and operated by the SPRMIC on the SRPMIC's reservation in Arizona, which includes waste disposal areas identified as “Phases I-VI.” The Research, Development, and Demonstration Permit Application Salt River Landfill, submitted by SRPMIC and dated September 24, 2007 and amended in April 2008 is hereby incorporated into this provision by this reference. The facility owner and/or operator may operate the facility in accordance with this application, including the following activities more generally described as follows:
(1) The owner and/or operator may install a geosynthetic clay liner as an alternative bottom liner system in Phase VI.
(2) The owner and/or operator may operate Phase VI as a bioreactor by recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and by adding storm water and groundwater, to the below grade portions of Phase VI.
(3) The owner and/or operator may increase the moisture content of the waste mass in Phases IIIB and IVA by recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and by adding storm water and groundwater, to the below grade portions of Phases IIIB and IVA.
(4) The owner and/or operator shall maintain less than a 30-cm depth of leachate on the liner.
(5) The owner and/or operator shall submit reports to the Director of the
(6) The owner and/or operator may not operate the facility pursuant to the authority granted by this section if there is any deviation from the terms, conditions, and requirements of this section unless the operation of the facility will continue to conform to the standards set forth in § 258.4 of this chapter and the owner and/or operator has obtained the prior written approval of the Director of the Waste Management Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee to implement corrective measures or otherwise operate the facility subject to such deviation. The Director of the Waste Management Division or designee shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any significant deviation prior to providing his or her written approval of the deviation.
(7) Paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section will terminate August 4, 2011 unless the Director of the Waste Management Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee renews this authority in writing. Any such renewal may extend the authority granted under paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section for up to an additional three years, and multiple renewals (up to a total of 12 years) may be provided. The Director of the Waste Management Division or designee shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any renewal request prior to providing his or her written approval or disapproval of such request.
(8) In no event will the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) or (9) of this section remain in effect after August 4, 2020. Upon termination of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section, and except with respect to paragraphs (a)(1) and (4) of this section, the owner and/or operator shall return to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have been in effect absent the flexibility provided through this site-specific rule.
(9) In seeking any renewal of the authority granted under or other requirements of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5) and (6) of this section, the owner and/or operator shall provide a detailed assessment of the project showing the status with respect to achieving project goals, a list of problems and status with respect to problem resolutions, and any other requirements that the Director of the Waste Management Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee has determined are necessary for the approval of any renewal and has communicated in writing to the owner and operator.
(10) The owner and/or operator's authority to operate the landfill in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section shall terminate if the Director of the Waste Management Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee determines that the overall goals of the project are not being attained, including protection of human health or the environment. Any such determination shall be communicated in writing to the owner and operator.
(b) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Mississippi has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Mississippi. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2007-1185 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may also view and copy Mississippi's application from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste Division, 101 W. Capital, Suite 100, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.
Otis Johnson, Permits and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; (404) 562-8481 fax number: (404) 562-9964; e-mail address:
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise language regarding requirements for improper business practices and personal conflicts of interest.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before October 3, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2008-G502 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Ernest Woodson at (202) 501-3775, or by e-mail at
The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update the text addressing GSAR Part 503, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest; Subpart 503.1, Safeguards; Subpart 503.2, Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel; Subpart 503.4, Contingent Fees; Subpart 503.5, Other Improper Business Practices; Subpart 503.7, Voiding and Rescinding Contracts; and Subpart 503.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethnics and Conduct.
This rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) Rewrite initiative. The initiative was undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM to maintain consistency with the FAR and implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA acquisition personnel can use when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) as well as internal agency acquisition policy.
GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, will publish it in the
This rule covers the rewrite of the regulatory portion of Part 503. The rule revises GSAR Subpart 503.1, Safeguards, to delete 503.104-1, Definitions, and 503.104-9, Contracts clauses, to ensure consistency with the GSAM that provides that the acquisition of leasehold interests in real property is established by GSAM Part 570; Subpart 503.2, Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel, to revise 503.204(a)(2) to delete the term “joint venture” to ensure grammatical and structural clarity; to delete from 503.204(c) the reference to the Chairman of the GSA Board of Contract Appeals which no longer exists, and revise 503.204(f); to ensure consistency with FAR 3.204(f), Subpart 503.4, Contingents Fees, to delete 503.404, Contract clause, to ensure consistency with the GSAM that provides that the acquisition of leasehold interests in real property is established by GSAM Part 570; Subpart 503.5, Other Improper Business Practices, to revise 503.570-1, Policy, to delete the term “referring” and add “making references” for clarity; Subpart 503.7, Voiding and Rescinding
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the GSAM do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 503 and 552 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 503 is revised to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
2. Remove sections 503.104-3 and 503.104-9.
3. Amend section 503.204 by—
a. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) “or joint venture”;
b. Removing from paragraph (c) “designated by the Chairman of the GSA Board of Contract Appeals.” and adding a period, in its place; and
c. Revising paragraph (f).
The revised text reads as follows:
(f) If the Gratuities clause was violated, the contractor may present evidence of mitigating factors to the Senior Procurement Executive, or designee, in accordance with FAR 3.204(b), either orally or in writing, consistent with a schedule the Senior Procurement Executive, or designee, establishes. The Senior Procurement Executive, or designee, exercises the Government’s rights under FAR 3.204(c) only after considering mitigating factors.
4. Remove section 503.404.
5. Amend section 503.570-1 by removing “referring” and adding “making references” in its place.
6. Remove section 503.702.
7. Add section 503.703 to read as follows:
Pursuant to FAR 3.703 and 3.705(b), the authority to void or rescind contracts resides with the Senior Procurement Executive.
8. Add Subpart 503.10 to read as follows:
(a) The FAR threshold for the clause at 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), is $5,000,000. However, GSA has exercised the authority provided at FAR 3.1004(b)(1)(i) to establish a lower threshold, $1,000,000, for inclusion of the clause when the contract or order is funded with disaster assistance funds.
(b) The information required to be inserted in the clause at FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), is as follows:
(i) Poster: GSA OIG “FRAUDNET HOTLINE”; and
(ii) Obtain from: Contracting Officer.
9. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 552 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
10. Remove sections 552.203-5 and 552.203-70.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2009 and until further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI) program.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than September 3, 2008.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5291). For legal issues, you may call Michael Goode, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5263). You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket in person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
On June 24, 1996, at 61 FR 32411, we published a notice that discussed in full the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562, since recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30141-47. The reader is referred to that notice for background information relating to this rulemaking action. Certain fees were initially established to become effective January 31, 1990, and have been periodically adjusted since then.
We are required to review and make appropriate adjustments at least every two years in the fees established for the administration of the RI program. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in any fiscal year (FY) are to be established before the beginning of such year.
The proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed and reflect the slight increase in hourly costs in the past two fiscal years attributable to the approximately 2.64 and 4.49 percent raises (including the locality adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2007, and on January 1, 2008, respectively.
Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must pay the annual fees established “* * * to pay for the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers * * *” This fee is payable both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its registration application (or in later submissions amending that information) remains correct (49 CFR 592.5(f)).
In compliance with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications. We have tentatively determined that this fee should be increased from $266 to $295 for new applications. We have also tentatively determined that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be increased from $159 to $186. The proposed adjustments reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, as well as the inflation factor attributable to Federal salary increases and locality adjustments in the two years since the fees were last adjusted.
We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the registration program that arise from the need for us to review a registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to those matters in the past two years.
Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is approximately $465 for each RI, an increase of $54. When this $465 is added to the $295 representing the registration application component, the cost to an applicant for RI status comes to $760, which is the fee we propose. This represents an increase of $83 over the existing fee. When the $465 is added to the $186 representing the annual statement component, the total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes to $651, which represents an increase of $81.
Sec. 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with processing the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states that these costs represent a pro-rata allocation of the average salary and benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform related functions, and “a pro-rata allocation of the costs attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word processor.” For the purpose of establishing the fees that are currently in existence, indirect costs are $17.07 per man-hour. We are proposing to increase this figure by $3.24, to $20.31. This proposed increase is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were higher than the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes account of further projected increases over the next two fiscal years.
Section 30141(a)(3) also requires registered importers to pay other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of “* * * (B) making the decisions under this
The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the estimated pro-rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility decisions in a fiscal year.
Inflation and General Schedule raises must also be taken into account in the computation of costs. We have reduced costs by issuing a single
In the event that a petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection would remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of petition.
Importers of vehicles determined to be eligible for importation pay, upon the importation of those vehicles, a pro-rata share of the total cost for making the eligibility decision. The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is assessed), the fee would remain $125. NHTSA determined that the costs associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2008. We apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2008.
The agency's costs for making an import eligibility decision pursuant to a petition are borne in part by the petitioner and in part by the importers of vehicles imported under the petition. In 2007, the most recent year for which complete data exists, the agency expended $76,031 in making import eligibility decisions based on petitions. The petitioners paid $6,975 of that amount in the processing fees that accompanied the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $69,056 to be recovered from the importers of the 236 vehicles imported that year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $69,056 by 236 yields a pro-rata fee of $293 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that resulted from the granting of a petition.
However, the agency believes that the volume of petition-based imports for the next two fiscal years should not be projected on the basis of a single year, particularly one in which the volume of petition-based imports was atypically low. The agency therefore took the average number of petition-based imports over the past 15 years to project the number of such vehicles that would be imported in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010. Further, we assume that petitions filed during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 would also more closely reflect the average number of petitions received each year since 1991, the first year that the agency received RI petitions. Based on these estimates, we project that 621 vehicles would be imported under petition-based eligibility decisions and that 39 petition-based import eligibility decisions would be made.
Based on these estimates, the agency's costs for processing these petitions would increase to no more than $136,000. Petitioners would pay slightly more than $13,000 of that amount in the processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $123,000 to be recovered from the importers of the 621 vehicles to be imported each year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $123,000 by 621 yields a pro-rata fee of $198 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that results from the granting of a petition.
Based on our estimates for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, the pro-rata fee to be paid by the importer of each such vehicle would decrease from $208 to $198, representing a decrease of $10 from the existing fee for each vehicle imported. The same $198 fee would be paid regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a), based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes “* * * to pay for the costs of—(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the Treasury * * *” upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or abandoned to the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) now exercises the functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5 employee spends on each entry,
Based on General Schedule salary and locality raises that were effective in January 2007 and 2008 and the inclusion of costs for benefits, we are proposing that the processing fee be increased by $.46, from $9.77 per bond to $10.23. This fee would reflect the direct and indirect costs that are actually associated with processing the bonds.
Each RI is currently required to pay $13 per vehicle to cover the costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We estimate that these costs would increase to an average of $14.00 per vehicle because of increased contractor and overhead costs. Based on these estimates, we are proposing to increase the fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is made, from $13 to $14, a difference of $1 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system, has an e-mail address to receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee to $6.00. We propose to maintain the fee of $6.00 per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry is correct.
Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve the conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory time, as well the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $42 for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $48, representing no change in the fee that is currently charged when there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of conformity.
The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2008.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. There would be no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and which are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or be only modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees now being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances, sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond processing costs.
Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles.
Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to
The proposed rule would 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. Moreover, NHTSA is required by statute to impose fees for the administration of the RI program and to review and make necessary adjustments in those fees at least every two years. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.
NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” this agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposal would require no information collections.
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
After conducting a search of available sources, we have concluded that there are no voluntary consensus standards applicable to this proposed rule.
Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given at the beginning of this document under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
(2) On that page, click on “search for dockets.”
(3) On the next page (
(4) After entering that information, click on “submit.”
(5) The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 594 as follows:
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
1. The authority citation for part 594 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 594.6 is amended by;
A. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
B. Revising paragraph (b);
C. Revising paragraph (d);
D. Revising the final sentence of paragraph (h); and
E. Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
(a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after October 1, 2008, must pay an annual fee of $760, as calculated below, based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:
(b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the processing of the application for applications filed on and after October 1, 2008, is $295. The sum of $295, representing this portion, shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
(d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the remaining activities of administering the registration program on and after October 1, 2008, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. This portion shall be refundable if the application is denied, or withdrawn before final action upon it.
(h) * * * This cost is $23.31 per man-hour for the period beginning October 1, 2008.
(i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee attributable to administration of the registration program, covering the period beginning October 1, 2008, is $465. When added to the costs of registration of $295, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are $760. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning October 1, 2008, is $651.
3. Section 594.7 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2008, the fee payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. The fee payable for a petition seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is $800. If the petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the sum of $827 shall be added to such fee. No portion of this fee is refundable if the petition is withdrawn or denied.
4. Section 594.8 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the fee for each vehicle is $198. The direct and indirect costs that determine the fee are those set forth in §§ 594.7(b), (c), and (d).
(c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2008, pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is $125. * * *
5. Section 594.9 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is $10.23.
5. Section 594.10 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2008 is $14. However, if the vehicle covered by the certificate has been entered electronically with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Automated Broker Interface and the registered importer submitting the certificate has an e-mail address, the fee for the certificate is $6, provided that the fee is paid by a credit card issued to the registered importer. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the certificate is incorrect, requiring further processing, the processing fee shall be $48.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations that amend the subsistence fishery rules for members of an Alaska Native tribe eligible to harvest Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska for customary and traditional use. The proposed change would correct the location listed in the regulations for the Village of Kanatak tribe and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) halibut regulatory area (Area) in which members may subsistence fish. These regulations correctly define the headquarters and Area for the Village of Kanatak tribe. The action would change the tribe's headquarters from Egegik to Wasilla and the corresponding Area from 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the correction is to remove restrictions on participation of tribal members in traditional subsistence fisheries for Pacific halibut by aligning the tribe's headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla.
Comments must be received no later than September 3, 2008.
Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AW36” by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
• Fax: (907) 586-7557.
• Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
All comments received are a part of the public record and will be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments must be in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats to be accepted.
Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West 9
Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228.
The United States and Canada participate in the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and promulgate regulations governing the Pacific halibut (
The lists of rural communities and native tribes recommended by the Council and approved by the Secretary for subsistence fishing eligibility were derived from positive customary and traditional findings for halibut and bottomfish made by the Alaska State Board of Fisheries (BOF) prior to the Alaska Supreme Court decision,
In June 2007, the Council received a request from the Kanatak Tribal Council to have its fishing area corrected from Area 4E to Area 3A, because the current, erroneous, listing has prevented the same tribal members from participating in traditional subsistence fisheries. The Council recognized this difference and responded by recommending an amendment to § 300.65(g)(2) to change the listing for the Village of Kanatak's headquarters from Egegik to Wasilla and update the corresponding halibut regulatory area from Area 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the correction is to remove restrictions on individual participation by aligning the tribe's headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla.
Individual persons are eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if they are rural residents of a community or a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Communities and tribes are listed in tables by Halibut Regulatory Areas at § 300.65(g)(1) and (2), respectively. A person subsistence fishing for halibut also must hold a valid Subsistence Halibut Area Registration Certificate (SHARC) in that person's name issued by NMFS. An individual holding a SHARC that resides in a rural area may harvest subsistence halibut in all waters in and off Alaska except for areas designated as non-subsistence areas. The four non-subsistence areas specified in regulation at § 300.65(h)(3) are the Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage/-Matsu/-Kenai, and Valdez non-subsistence areas (see Figures 2 through 5 to subpart E of part 300). Under this action, there would be no change to rural eligibility criteria to subsistence fish for halibut in any halibut regulatory area in waters in and off the State of Alaska.
A non-rural Alaska resident or a resident of another state who is a member of a tribe that is located in a rural area is limited to subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or her area of tribal membership (§ 300.65(h)(4)(i) and (ii)). The “area of tribal membership” is defined at § 300.65(h)(4)(iii) as “rural areas of the [IPHC] regulatory area or of the Bering Sea closed area in which the Alaska Native tribal headquarters is located.” The area of tribal membership for the Kanatak tribe is currently Area 4E. The action would align the Village of Kanatak's tribal headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla in Area 3A and effectively changes area restrictions on some members of the tribe to conduct subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed action is expected to redistribute some tribal members' harvesting effort from Area 4E to fishing areas in Area 3A. Waters in Area 3A include two non-subsistence areas that are closed to subsistence fishing: the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area and the Valdez non-rural area.
Moving the place of the Kanatak tribal headquarters to Wasilla is expected to increase customary and traditional uses of halibut by individual members of the tribe in Area 3A. Wasilla is a community in the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area within Area 3A where a majority of Kanatak tribal members reside. Non-rural and non-resident members of the Kanatak tribe may increase subsistence halibut use in Area 3A because they would have greater access to subsistence fishing areas through Anchorage, central Alaska's main transportation hub that is connected to road systems throughout much of Area 3A.
The action would improve accuracy of current regulations, and the quality of subsistence halibut information for non-rural tribal members, by correctly recognizing the location of the tribe's headquarters in Wasilla. This correction improves area specific data collected by the State of Alaska subsistence halibut survey and analyzed for reporting subsistence harvest and effort in Alaska.
Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. The proposed action is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off Alaska.
Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law (P.L.) 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of P.L. 109-447 (118 Stat. 3267), extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native corporations. NMFS has special obligations to consult and coordinate with tribal governments and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations on a government-to-government basis. This rule affects individual members of the Village of Kanatak tribe, but not the tribe itself, and the village of Kanatak is not recognized as an ANCSA corporation. NMFS recognizes the importance of communication and during the process of developing the proposed action, NMFS consulted with the Alaska Native Subsistence Halibut Working Group in December 2007 and the Kanatak Tribal Administrator in January 2008.
The proposed rule was determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The United States and Canada participate in the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and promulgate regulations governing the Pacific halibut (
In June 2007, the Council received a request from the Kanatak Tribal Council to have its fishing area corrected from Area 4E to Area 3A, because the current, erroneous, listing has prevented the same tribal members from participating in traditional subsistence fisheries. The Council recognized this difference and responded by
Individual persons are eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if they are rural residents of a community or a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Communities and tribes are listed in tables by Halibut Regulatory Areas at § 300.65(g)(1) and (2), respectively. A person subsistence fishing for halibut also must hold a valid Subsistence Halibut Area Registration Certificate (SHARC) in that person's name issued by NMFS. An individual holding a SHARC that resides in a rural area may harvest subsistence halibut in all waters in and off Alaska except for areas designated as non-subsistence areas. The four non-subsistence areas specified in regulation at § 300.65(h)(3) are the Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage/-Matsu/-Kenai, and Valdez non-subsistence areas (see Figures 2 through 5 to subpart E of part 300). Under this action, there would be no change to rural eligibility criteria to subsistence fish for halibut in any halibut regulatory area in waters in and off the State of Alaska.
A non-rural Alaska resident or a resident of another state who is a member of a tribe that is located in a rural area is limited to subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or her area of tribal membership (§ 300.65(h)(4)(i) and (ii)). The “area of tribal membership” is defined at § 300.65(h)(4)(iii) as “rural areas of the [IPHC] regulatory area or of the Bering Sea closed area in which the Alaska Native tribal headquarters is located.” The area of tribal membership for the Kanatak tribe is currently Area 4E. The action would align the Village of Kanatak's tribal headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla in Area 3A and effectively changes area restrictions on some members of the tribe to conduct subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed action is expected to redistribute some tribal members' harvesting effort from Area 4E to fishing areas in Area 3A. Waters in Area 3A include two non-subsistence areas that are closed to subsistence fishing: the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area and the Valdez non-rural area.
Moving the place of the Kanatak tribal headquarters to Wasilla is expected to increase customary and traditional uses of halibut by individual members of the tribe in Area 3A. Wasilla is a community in the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area within Area 3A where a majority of Kanatak tribal members reside. Non-rural and non-resident members of the Kanatak tribe may increase subsistence halibut use in Area 3A because they would have greater access to subsistence fishing areas through Anchorage, central Alaska's main transportation hub that is connected to road systems throughout much of Area 3A.
The action would not directly regulate any small entities. Small entities have the same definition as small business, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions in Section 601(3)-(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. Instead, the action would directly regulate individual persons who are not considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA.
An individual member of the Village of Kanatak tribe would be directly regulated by the action if he or she is: (a) a non-rural resident of Alaska or a resident of a state other than Alaska; and (b) subsistence fishing for halibut (§ 300.65(h)(4)(i)-(iii)). Even though there are typically a number of individuals in a tribe they are regulated as individual persons and not collectively as evidenced by the distinction of residency. The Village of Kanatak would be the only Alaska Native tribe whose non-rural and non-resident members would be directly regulated by the proposed rule.
All of the persons that would be directly regulated by the action are natural persons. The subsistence halibut regulation at § 300.65(g)(2) specifies that “A person is eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if he or she is a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and traditional uses of halibut listed [in the table in this paragraph].” The Village of Kanatak is listed in the table and individual members of the tribe are recognized as natural persons eligible to harvest subsistence halibut. Moreover, all of the members of the Kanatak Tribe are natural persons as direct descendents of individuals counted in a census carried out in Kanatak in 1924 (Olivier, pers. comm.). The regulations further specify at § 300.61 that halibut caught for subsistence purposes are defined as halibut caught by a rural resident or a member of an Alaska Native tribe for direct personal or family consumption as food, sharing for personal or family consumption as food, or customary trade. While there is no clear requirement in the regulations that a “rural resident” or a “member of an Alaska Native tribe” be a natural person, the regulations clearly anticipate that they will be.
The definition of small entity, distinction of individual tribal members, and declaration of natural persons combined provide the factual basis for asserting no small entities are directly regulated by the action.
No small entities are directly regulated by the proposed rule. Therefore, there are no economic impacts on directly regulated small entities.
The criteria used to determine whether or not small entities are directly regulated by this action are the definitions of a small business, small organization, small governmental jurisdiction, and small entity in 601(3), (4), (5), and (6) of the RFA, and the definition of a business concern at 13 CFR 121.105.
Because this action will not directly regulate any small entities, no criteria were necessary to make a determination of whether or not the action would have significant economic impacts on directly regulated entities.
The finding that no small entities would be directly regulated by this action is based on the definition of small entities in the RFA and implementing regulations, a determination that only individual members of the Kanatak Tribe would be directly regulated, and a determination that all individual tribal members are natural persons, and not entities, as contemplated by the statute and regulations. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Because there will not be a substantial impact on a significant number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Alaska, Alaska Natives, Fisheries, Fishing, Pacific halibut fisheries, Tribes.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 300 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
2. In § 300.65, in paragraph (g)(2):
A. In the table for Halibut Regulatory Area 3A, add in alphabetical order an entry for “Wasilla”.
B. In the table for Halibut Regulatory Area 4E, revise the entry for “Egegik”.
The addition and revision read as follows.
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the intent of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to request approval for revision of the currently approved information collection for the CSREES application review process.
Written comments on this notice must be received by October 8, 2008, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments, by any of the following methods:
Jason Hitchcock,
Applications submitted to CSREES undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and ad hoc reviews.
Given the highly technical nature of many of these applications, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of an application with the technical expertise of a potential reviewer.
Information about potential panel and ad hoc reviewers is collected via an electronic questionnaire. New reviewers are prompted via an e-mail message to complete the questionnaire. The information from the completed questionnaire is loaded into a CSREES database system. The questionnaire collects basic biographical information including address, contact information, and professional expertise. If a reviewer's information is already included in the database, then the questionnaire serves as a request for the potential reviewer to update her/his information. Information in the database system is then used to match applications with the most appropriate (potential) reviewers.
When a reviewer is selected by CSREES and the reviewer agrees to perform a review, the application and associated materials are then made available to her/him. With respect to the application, a reviewer must assure s/he: (1) Will comply with the CSREES Confidentiality Guidelines and (2) does not have a conflict of interest. Upon completion of a review, the reviewer completes various worksheets in PRS evaluating an application against established criterion providing comments as necessary. If appropriate, a peer panel is convened to review and discuss proposals and make funding recommendations.
Information collected from the reviews and/or peer panel is used to determine whether an application is to be recommended for award. When CSREES has rendered a decision, copies of reviews (excluding the names of the reviewers) and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director.
The CSREES review process is recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Modification of Hoosier National Forest Boundary.
Pursuant to authority vested in me by section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 961), as amended, and section 17(a) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2961), the exterior boundary of the Hoosier National Forest is modified as described below, and all lands within these National Forest boundaries, as adjusted, that have been or hereafter are acquired by the United States for National Forest purposes, are hereby designated for administration as part of the Hoosier National Forest. This change in the exterior boundary of the Hoosier National Forest would allow for the acquisition and management of unique limestone karst features located in the Lost River karst system. The land area to be retracted from the Hoosier National Forest is near French Lick, in an area with no National Forest System lands and where future acquisition is not contemplated.
This notice is effective August 4, 2008.
Louisa Herrera, Lands Staff, 202-205-1255; 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Mailstop 1103, Washington, DC 20250-1124.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The changes to the Hoosier National Forest boundary are:
The boundary of the Hoosier National Forest is modified to include the following described lands:
The areas encompassed by this boundary modification in Orange County, Indiana, including both public and nonpublic lands, contain 16,723 acres.
The boundary of the Hoosier National Forest is modified to retract the following described lands:
The areas encompassed by this boundary modification in Dubois County, Indiana, are nonpublic lands, containing 9,600 acres.
The areas encompassed by this boundary modification in Orange County, Indiana, are nonpublic lands, containing 7,002 acres.
Department of Commerce.
Notice.
Secretarial Business Development Mission to Central America and the Dominican Republic
September 28-October 4, 2008.
Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez will lead a senior-level business development trade mission to the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, September 28-October 4, 2008. The overall focus of the trip will be commercial opportunities for U.S. companies, including joint ventures and export opportunities. In each city (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Managua, Nicaragua and San Jose, Costa Rica) the participants will have a market briefing followed by two days of one-on-one appointments with potential buyers/partners and meetings with high-level government officials.
The application deadline has been extended. Applications should be submitted to the Office of Business Liaison by August 7, 2008. Applications received after that date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
The mission will focus on assisting U.S. companies doing business in Central America and the Dominican Republic to increase their current level of exports and business interests as well as help U.S. companies that are experienced exporters enter the Central American and Dominican Republic markets for the first time. The mission will help participating firms gain market information, make business and government contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, towards the goal of helping U.S. firms increase their exports and business interests in Central America and the Dominican Republic. The mission will include business-to-business matchmaking appointments with local companies, as well as meetings with key government officials, industry and trade associations, and American and local chambers of commerce. The mission will additionally provide a platform to address policy and commercial issues—including transparency, rule of law, financial reform and intellectual property rights protection and enforcement—that U.S. companies face
The delegation will be comprised of 15-20 U.S. firms representing a cross-section of U.S. industries with commercial interests in Central America and the Dominican Republic. The mission will also be open to participation by representatives of U.S. trade associations in the targeted industry sectors. Targeted industry sectors include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Automotive Hotel & Restaurant Equipment
• Computer Equipment & Peripherals
• Construction Equipment
• Electrical Power Generation & Distribution Equipment
• Food Processing & Packaging Equipment
• Hardware
• General & Household Consumer Goods
• Hotel & Restaurant Equipment
• Medical Equipment
• Optical Equipment
• Plastics
• Printing & Graphic Arts Equipment & Services
• Security & Safety Equipment & Services
• Telecommunications Equipment & Services
• Travel & Tourism
Representatives of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will be invited to participate (as appropriate) to provide information and counseling on their programs, as they relate to Central American and Dominican markets.
The United States is Costa Rica's leading trading partner, accounting for about 40 percent of Costa Rica's total imports. U.S. companies like Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Procter & Gamble and a number of franchising and service companies have established facilities here, due in many cases to the country's political stability, proximity to the U.S., and number of personnel who can combine technical expertise with the capability to speak English. For more detailed information on trade opportunities with Costa Rica, please visit:
The Dominican Republic (DR) is the sixth largest trading partner of the United States in the Western Hemisphere and the 32nd largest commercial partner of the United States in the world. The DR is also the largest market of the CAFTA-DR countries. Best industry prospects in the Dominican Republic include medical equipment, hotel and restaurant equipment, computer and peripherals, telecommunication equipment and tourism.
During the past two administrations, the government has increasingly adopted policies directed toward economic liberalization, including privatizing most state-owned enterprises and improving intellectual property rights protection and enforcement. For more detailed information on trade opportunities with the Dominican Republic please visit:
• Assist U.S. companies already doing business in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua to increase their business there;
• Assist U.S. companies that are experienced exporters to enter the Costa Rican, Dominican Republic and Nicaraguan markets for the first time;
• Assist our CAFTA-DR partners in attracting additional U.S. participation in major projects;
• Address obstacles to trade in Central America and the Dominican Republic, including transparency, rule of law, financial reform, and intellectual property rights protection and enforcement; and
• Provide information on U.S. Government trade financing programs, through the participation of representatives from OPIC, USTDA, Ex-Im, and USAID (as appropriate).
• Meet with high-level government officials;
• Meet with potential buyers, agents/distributors and partners;
• Meet with representatives of the chambers of commerce, industry and trade associations; and
• Attend briefings conducted by Embassy officials on the economic and commercial climates.
Receptions and other business events will be organized to provide mission participants with further opportunities to speak with local business and government representatives, as well as U.S. business executives living and working in the region.
• Arrive in Santo Domingo
• Economic/Market Briefing by U.S. Government Officials
• Welcome Dinner
• Meetings with Dominican Republic Government Officials
• Business Event/Briefing with Local Industry Representatives
• Individual Company Appointments
• Reception Hosted by U.S. Ambassador
• Business Event/Briefing with Local Industry Representatives
• Individual Company Appointments
• Depart Santo Domingo
• Arrive in Managua
• Economic/Market Briefing by U.S. Government Officials
• Meetings with Nicaraguan Government Officials
• Business Event/Briefing with Local Industry Representatives
• Individual Company Appointments
• Reception Hosted by U.S. Ambassador
• Depart Country Managua
• Arrive in San Jose
• Economic/Market Briefing by U.S. Government Officials
• Business Event/Briefing with Local Industry Representatives
• Individual Company Appointments
• Reception Hosted by the U.S. Ambassador
• Meetings with Costa Rican Government Officials
• Individual Company Appointments
• Business Event/Briefing by Local Industry Representatives
• Mission Ends and Mission Participants Depart San Jose
Each applicant must also:
• Certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. In cases where the U.S. content does not exceed fifty percent, especially where the applicant intends to pursue investment and major project opportunities, the following factors, often associated with U.S. ownership, may be considered in determining whether the applicant's participation in the trade mission is in the U.S. national interest:
○ U.S. materials and equipment content;
○ U.S. labor content;
○ Repatriation of profits to the U.S. economy; and/or
○ Potential for follow-on business that would benefit the U.S. economy;
• Certify that the export of the products and services that it wishes to export through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce for its evaluation any business pending before the Department of Commerce that may present the appearance of a conflict of interest;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.
• Suitability of a company's products or services to the Central American and Dominican Republic markets and likelihood of a participating company's increasing exports to or investment in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic or Nicaragua within a year as a result of this mission;
• Demonstrated export and/or investment experience in Central America and the Dominican Republic and/or globally;
• Current or pending major project participation; and
• Rank/seniority of the designated company representative.
Additional factors, such as diversity of company size, type, location, demographics, and traditional under-representation in business, may also be considered during the review process. Referrals from political organizations and any documents, including the application, containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed
Recruitment for this mission will begin on June 2, 2008. Applications can be completed on-line at the Central American and the Dominican Republic Business Development Mission Web site at
The application deadline is Thursday, July 31, 2008. Completed applications should be submitted to the Office of Business Liaison. Applications received after July 31, 2008 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Michael McGee (Until July 1st), Senior Commercial Officer, Costa Rica, Phone: (506) 2519-2207; Fax: (506) 2231-4783, E-mail:
Bryan Smith, Senior Commercial Officer, Costa Rica (effective July 1, 2008), Phone: (506) 2519-2207; Fax: (506) 2231-4783, E-mail:
Robert O. Jones, Senior Commercial Officer for the Caribbean Region, the Dominican Republic, Tel: (809) 227-2121; Fax: (809) 920-0267,
Marixell García, Commercial Specialist, Econ/Commerce Section, Nicaragua, Tel: (505) 266-6010, Ext. 4371; Fax: (505) 266-9056 o (505) 266-6034, E-mail:
Notice of issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Redberri Global Corporation (Application No. 08-00005).
On July 21, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Redberri Global Corporation (“Redberri”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted.
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by e-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2008).
Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
Redberri is certified to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below in the following Export Trade and Export Markets.
1. Products
All Products, with emphasis on products that incorporate technologies such as bio-technology, software, nanotechnology, telemedicine, and other related technologies.
2. Services
All Services.
3. Technology Rights
Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets that relate to Products and Services.
4. Export Trade Facilitation Services (as they Relate to the Export of Products, Services, and Technology Rights)
Export Trade Facilitation Services include professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; export trade negotiations; joint ventures; logistical support; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; and transfer of technology.
The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).
1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights, and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, Redberri may:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
2. Redberri may exchange and discuss the following information on a one-to-one basis with its individual Suppliers and Export Intermediaries:
a. Information about sales and marketing efforts for the Export Markets, activities and opportunities for sales of Products, Services, and Technology Rights in the Export Markets, selling strategies for the Export Markets, sales for the Export Markets, contract and spot pricing in the Export Markets, projected demands in the Export Markets for Products, Services, and Technology Rights, customary terms of sale in the Export Markets, prices and availability of Products, Services, and Technology rights from competitors for sale in the Export Markets, and specifications for Products, Services, and Technology Rights by customers in the Export Markets;
b. Information about the price, quality, quantity, source, and delivery dates of Products available from Suppliers and Export Intermediaries for export;
c. Information about terms and conditions of contracts for sales in the Export Markets to be considered or bid on by Redberri;
d. Information about bidding or selling arrangements for the Export Markets and allocations among Suppliers and Export Intermediaries of sales resulting from such arrangements;
e. Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs duties, and taxes;
f. Information about U.S. and foreign legislation and regulations, including
g. Information about Redberri's export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by Redberri or its Suppliers and Export Intermediaries in the Export Markets (including export price information); and
h. Information about export customers' credit terms and credit history.
3. Redberri may meet with its Suppliers and Export Intermediaries on a one-to-one basis to engage in the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
4. Redberri and its Suppliers and Export Intermediaries may jointly participate in international trade shows and technology summits.
5. Redberri may market Products, Services, and Technology Rights under brand names to the extent it has the right to use those names under applicable law.
6. Redberri may form and operate electronic portals to promote Products, Services, and Technology Rights through a virtual marketplace for buyers and sellers in Export Markets, and thereby provide access to export trade opportunities, including publicly available overseas government tenders and non-governmental organization tenders.
7. Redberri may provide for or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services.
8. Redberri may negotiate, enter into, and manage exclusive or non-exclusive licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights.
9. Redberri may enter into exclusive or nonexclusive agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products or Services to the Export Markets.
1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations, Redberri will not intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to any Supplier or Export Intermediary any information about any other Supplier's or Export Intermediary's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, or U.S. business plans, strategies, or methods that is not already generally available to the trade or public.
2. Redberri will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation of a person protected by this Certificate of Review continue to comply with the standards of Section 303(a) of the Act.
1. “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights.
2. “Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as a distributor, sales representative, sales or marketing agent, import agent, broker, or who performs similar functions including providing or arranging for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services.
The Certificate protects Redberri and its directors, officers, and employees acting on its behalf, from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions.
The Certificate continues in effect until it is relinquished, modified, or revoked as provided in the Act and the Regulations.
Nothing in the Certificate prohibits Redberri from engaging in conduct not specified in the Certificate, but such conduct is subject to the normal application of the antitrust laws.
1. The issuance of the Certificate of Review to Redberri by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Attorney General under the provisions of the Act does not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, an endorsement or opinion of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General concerning either (a) the viability or quality of the business plans of Redberri or (b) the legality of such business plans of Redberri under the laws of the United States (other than as provided in the Act) or under the laws of any foreign country.
2. The application of the Certificate to conduct in Export Trade where the U.S. Government is the buyer or where the U.S. Government bears more than half the cost of the transaction is subject to the limitations set forth in Section V.(D.) of the “Guidelines for the Issuance of Export Trade Certificates of Review (Second Edition),” 50 FR 1786 (January 11, 1985).
A copy of the Certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 4, 2008.
Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780.
On December 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 120 days until no later than December 1, 2008,
This notice is issued and published in accordance to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain individually quick frozen (IQF) red raspberries from Chile. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. This review covers sales of IQF red raspberries by producer/exporter Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. We preliminarily find that, during the POR, sales of IQF red raspberries were not made below normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.
August 4, 2008.
Alexander Montoro or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0238 and (202) 482-0196, respectively.
On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (Department) published an antidumping duty order on certain IQF red raspberries from Chile.
On March 7, 2008, we requested that Valle Frio respond to the Constructed Value (CV) portion of the Department's questionnaire. For further discussion,
On March 21, 2008, the Department published in the
On March 13, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Valle Frio, and Valle Frio submitted its response on April 7, 2008. On April 1, 2008, Valle Frio submitted a response to Department's request for CV information. After analyzing these responses, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Valle Frio on June 13, 2008. We received a timely filed response on July 07, 2008.
The products covered by this order are imports of IQF whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size or horticulture method (
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared export price (EP) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. We note that we continue to have outstanding sales reconciliation issues with Valle Frio's responses. For purposes of calculating these
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold by the respondent in the comparison market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
Normally, we compare U.S. sales to monthly weighted average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. The Department determined that for merchandise sold in the United States, Valle Frio did not have valid comparison market sales matches because the calculated difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) was greater than twenty percent for all matches for reported U.S. sales control numbers (CONNUMs).
Normally, the Department employs invoice date as the date of sale.
For sales to the United States, we calculated Export Price (EP), in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.
We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, inland freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port and domestic brokerage and handling expenses.
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign-like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. Quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.
Valle Frio reported that its home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of its sales of IQF red raspberries to the United States. Therefore, Valle Frio did not have a viable home market for purposes of calculating NV. Valle Frio reported sales to France, which was its largest third country market. Valle Frio reported that no other third country markets were viable and sales to France exceeded five percent of its sales to the United States. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating NV, Valle Frio reported its sales to France.
To derive NV, we made the adjustments detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” sections, below.
Even though, as explained above, Valle Frio did not have valid comparison market sales matches, we calculated NV for purposes of determining selling expenses and profit to be included in CV. To calculate the CV profit percentage, we based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in France. We adjusted the starting price by deducting movement expenses, including, where appropriate, inland freight from the plant to the port, international freight, and container handling/brokerage charges. We also deducted direct and indirect selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales (
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. As noted above, the Department determined that for merchandise sold in the United States, Valle Frio did not have valid comparison market sales matches because the calculated DIFMER was greater than the twenty percent for all matches for reported U.S. sales CONNUMs.
We relied on the CV data submitted by Valle Frio. We note that we continue to have outstanding cost reconciliation and valuation issues with Valle Frio's responses. For purposes of calculating these preliminary results, we are accepting the data provided by Valle Frio. However, we intend to ask for further information following publication of these preliminary results to determine whether the aforementioned responses accurately reflect Valle Frio's constructed value.
We made adjustments to CV for differences in Circumstances of Sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset). Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) the amount of the commission paid in the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV (based on CV) following the same methodology.
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin:
Within ten days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Valle Frio for which it has reported the importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
On July 20, 2007, the Department published a
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from Inquide Flix S.A. (Inquide), on February 13, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
August 4, 2008.
Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780.
The Department received a timely request from Inquide, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. On February 13, 2008, the Department found that the request for review with respect to Inquide met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated an antidumping duty new shipper review.
On February 14, 2008, the Department issued a questionnaire requesting that Inquide clarify whether it has ever been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the original period of investigation. Included in this questionnaire was documentation from the first administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain, which called into question Inquide's certification regarding its affiliations.
On July 22, 2008, Inquide withdrew its request for a new shipper review.
Section 351.214(f)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department may rescind a new shipper review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 60 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Although Inquide withdrew its request after the 60-day deadline, we find it reasonable to extend the deadline because we have not yet committed significant resources to the Inquide new shipper review. Specifically, we have not issued the initial questionnaire. Further, Inquide was the only party to request this review. Finally, we have not received any submissions opposing the withdrawal of the request for the review. For these reasons, we are rescinding the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain with respect to Inquide in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1).
As the Department is rescinding this antidumping duty new shipper review, normally, the all-others rate in effect at the time of entry, 24.83 percent
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanctions.
This new shipper rescission and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for modification
Notice is hereby given that Dr. Boyd Kynard, S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center (USGS-BRD), Box 796, One Migratory Way, Turners Falls, MA 01376, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1549.
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.
The modification request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394.
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular modification request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Malcolm Mohead or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289.
The subject modification to Permit No. 1549, issued on February 1, 2007 (72 FR 5680), is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Permit No. 1549 currently authorizes the permit holder to determine up and downstream migrations, habitat use, spawning periodicity, seasonal movements, and growth of shortnose sturgeon in the Connecticut River (from Agawan to Montague, MA), and in the Merrimack River (at Haverhill, MA), and in the Androscoggin River (ME). In addition, Dr. Kynard is authorized to take a total of 1,000 fertilized eggs annually from each of the following rivers: Kennebec River and Androscoggin River (ME); Merrimack River (MA); Hudson River (NY); Delaware River (DE); Potomac River (MD); and Santee-Cooper River (SC).
The permit holder is now requesting to conduct new research in the Merrimack River authorizing him: (1) to take 200 adult/large juvenile and 100 small juvenile (0-3 years) shortnose sturgeon; (2) to use trawls for capture of smaller juveniles; (3) to telemetry tag 15 adults/large juveniles and 15 early juveniles; (4) to change the action area to include the Estuary to I-495 at Haverhill, Massachusetts; and (5) to increase incidental mortality of shortnose sturgeon to a total of three fish. The purpose of the proposed modification is to provide a mark/recapture population estimate for the river and to provide evidence for recolonization verses recruitment to explain an apparent recent increase in abundance of shortnose sturgeon found in the river. This modification would be valid through the expiration date of the original permit, January 31, 2012.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Committee in August, 2008 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Monday, August 25, 2008, at 9 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Peabody, MA 01960: telephone: (978) 535-4600; fax: (978) 535-8238.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review and finalize the Draft Amendment 3 document, which is scheduled for public hearings in October. The Plan Development Team (PDT) will also recommend a rebuilding schedule and plan for smooth skate that NMFS recently determined has become overfished. Amendment 3 proposes catch limits, time/area closures, and possession limits to reduce skate landings and mortality to levels that are consistent with rebuilding smooth, thorny and winter skate biomass while preventing overfishing.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel, in August, 2008, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 20, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Radisson Airport Hotel, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 739-3000; fax: (401) 732-9309.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The committee will review public scoping comments on Amendment 15 and provide initial input on a range of alternatives developed by the Scallop Committee to date. The scoping issues included: implementation of annual catch limits (ACLs); measures to rationalize the limited access scallop fishery; revision of the overfishing definition; modifications to specific aspects of the general category limited entry program implemented by Amendment 11; measures to address essential fish habitat (EFH) closed areas in the Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) if the EFH Omnibus Amendment is delayed; alternatives to improve the research set-aside program; and modifying the start date of the scallop fishing year. Other issues may also be discussed based on input from scoping hearings and a previous Scallop Committee meeting on July 8, 2008. The committee will also review Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) discussion of Section 7 Endangered Species Act Consultation for the Scallop FMP (Biological Opinion). Overall, the biological opinion concluded that the scallop fishery may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, continued existence of four sea turtle species. Thus, NMFS is required to identify and implement reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) necessary to minimize impacts of any incidental take. The Advisors may review PDT recommendations for how best to comply with these measures and provide input for the Scallop Committee to consider. The committee may discuss other topics at their discretion.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305 ( c ) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for amendment.
Notice is hereby given that the Whale Center of New England (WCNE) (Mason Weinrich, Principal Investigator), P.O. Box 159, Gloucester, MA 01930, has requested an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 605-1904.
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.
The amendment request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521;
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309.
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular amendment request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Amy Hapeman or Kristy Beard, (301)713-2289.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 605-1904, issued on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 10744) is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 605-1904 authorizes the permit holder to harass humpback (
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and To Conduct Public Scoping Meetings.
The Department of Energy (DOE) will prepare an EA and hold public scoping meetings on the proposed Federal action of granting a Presidential permit to Baja Wind U.S. Transmission, LLC (Baja Wind) to construct a new electric transmission line at the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego County, California, near the community of Jacumba. The proposed international transmission line would originate at a wind generation facility to be located in northern Baja California, Mexico, cross the U.S.-Mexico international border, and extend one mile into the U.S. where it would terminate at a substation to be constructed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) adjacent to the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) 500-kV transmission line, located in San Diego County, California. Baja Wind has applied to DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) for a Presidential permit to construct either a double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) or a single-circuit 500-kV electric transmission line across the U.S. border with Mexico.
The EA, entitled
DOE invites the public to participate in determining the scope of the EA by suggesting alternatives and pointing out potential environmental impacts. If at any time during preparation of the EA DOE determines that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is needed, DOE will issue a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the
DOE invites interested agencies, organizations, Native American tribes, and members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in identifying any potentially significant environmental issues and in determining the scope of the EA. The public scoping period starts with the publication of this Notice in the
Public scoping meetings will be held on August 26, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., and again from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., at the Jacumba Highland Center, 44681 Old Highway 80, Jacumba, California.
Written comments or suggestions on the scope of the EA should be addressed to: Mrs. Ellen Russell, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350; phone 202-586-9624, facsimile at 202-586-8008, or electronic mail at
For further information on the proposed project, on the Presidential permit process, or to receive a copy of the pre-approval EA when it is issued for state and public review, contact Ellen Russell at the address listed in the
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; phone 202-586-4600, leave a message at 800-472-2756, or facsimile to 202-586-7031.
Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038, requires that a Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border. The EO provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the public interest and after favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project under NEPA, determines the project's impact on electric reliability (including whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions), and considers any other factors that DOE may find relevant to the public interest. The regulations implementing the EO have been codified at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329. DOE's issuance of a Presidential permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the project, but does not mandate that the project be undertaken.
The purpose and need for DOE's action is to decide whether to grant Baja Wind's application for a Presidential permit for the proposed international electric transmission line. DOE's proposed action is to issue a Presidential permit for the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of the proposed international electric transmission line. If granted, the Presidential permit would authorize only the one-mile portion of the applicant's proposal that would be constructed and operated wholly within the United States.
Both of Baja Wind's alternatives would cross the U.S.-Mexican border at the same location. However, the alternative identified as A1 in the Presidential permit application would be constructed at 500-kV and would be the eastern alternative; the alternative identified as A2 would be constructed at 230-kV and be located to the west of the A1 alternative. Both alternatives would be located wholly within private property in eastern San Diego County near the unincorporated community of Jacumba. In addition to the alternatives proposed by Baja Wind, DOE will consider reasonable alternatives that are identified during scoping. The EA will also consider the environmental impacts of a “No Action” alternative.
Baja Wind's proposed transmission line would connect wind turbines (the La Rumorosa Project) to be located in the vicinity of La Rumorosa, Baja California, Mexico, to San Diego Gas & Electric's existing Southwest Powerlink transmission line. The proposed transmission line would consist of either a double-circuit 230-kV or a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line installed on either lattice towers or steel monopoles. The La Rumorosa Project and the two-mile portion of transmission facilities located in Mexico would be constructed, owned, operated, and maintained by a subsidiary of Sempra Energy Mexico and would be subject to the permitting requirements of the Mexican Government. The proposed one-mile long transmission line within the United States would be on private land and constructed, owned, operated, and maintained by Baja Wind. The entire electrical output of the La Rumorosa Project (1250 megawatts, approximately 260 to 300 turbines) would be dedicated to the U.S. market and delivered using the proposed international transmission line. The EA will only consider impacts that occur inside the United States.
Baja Wind's proposed transmission line would connect to a new substation to be constructed by SDG&E in response to requests by power suppliers to connect to the SWPL. The proposed substation would be located just south of the SWPL right-of-way and would contain equipment for accepting interconnections at both the 230-kV and the 500-kV level. The 230-kV connection equipment would be located just to the west of the 500-kV connection equipment, both within the confines of the substation boundary. Accordingly, Baja Wind has identified two routing/voltage alternatives to coincide with interconnection at 230-kV or the 500 kV level.
In the EA, DOE will examine public health and safety effects and environmental impacts in the United States from the proposed transmission facilities and from the wind farm to the extent that any impacts from it occur within the United States. DOE invites Tribal governments, Federal, State and local agencies, and those entities with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to be cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6.
This notice is to inform the public of the proposed project and to solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the EA. To help the public frame its comments, this notice contains a preliminary list of potential environmental issues that DOE has tentatively identified for analysis. These issues include:
1. Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants, or their critical habitats, e.g., the quino checkerspot butterfly and migratory birds;
2. Impacts on cultural or historic resources;
3. Impacts on human health and safety;
4. Impacts on air, soil, and water;
5. Visual impacts;
6. Socioeconomic impacts;
7. Disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations;
8. Impacts that would accrue to the U.S. as a result of related activities occurring inside Mexico (e.g., dust from the construction process inside Mexico or location of wind generators within view of the U.S.); and
9. Cumulative impacts.
On February 22, 2008, DOE published a notice in the
Several commenters in this proceeding have asked DOE to evaluate the impacts associated with activities that will occur inside Mexico (
Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping process both to refine the environmental issues to be analyzed and to identify the reasonable range of alternatives. Both oral and written comments will be considered and given equal weight by DOE.
Public scoping meetings will be held at the location, date, and times indicated above under the
The pre-approval EA is planned to be issued for state and public review by the spring of 2009. Persons submitting comments during the scoping process will receive a copy. Persons who do not wish to submit comments or suggestions at this time but who would like to receive a copy of the document for review when it is issued should notify Ellen Russell at the address provided above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Final Decisions on No Migration Petition Reissuances.
Notice is hereby given that exemptions to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act have been granted to Solutia, Inc, Chocolate Bayou Facility (Solutia) for two Class I injection wells located at Alvin, Texas. As required by 40 CFR Part 148, the company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petitions and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. These final decisions allow the underground injection by Solutia, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in these exemptions, into Class I hazardous waste injection wells Nos. WDW-224 and WDW-326 at the Chocolate Bayou, Alvin, Texas facility, until December 31, 2026, unless EPA moves to terminate these exemptions under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. Additional conditions included in these final decisions may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As required by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued June 5, 2008. The public comment period closed on July 21, 2008. No comments were received. These decisions constitute final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. These decisions may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
These actions are effective as of July 28, 2008.
Copies of the petitions and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7150.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 3, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your comments by e-mail to
For additional information about the information collection(s) or to obtain a copy of the collection send an e-mail to
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before September 3, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before September 3, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
47 CFR Section 76.990(b)(1) requires that a small cable operator, may certify in writing to its franchise authority at any time that it meets all criteria necessary to qualify as a small operator. Upon request of the local franchising authority, the operator shall identify in writing all of its affiliates that provide cable service, the total subscriber base of itself and each affiliate, and the aggregate gross revenues of its cable and non-cable affiliates. Within 90 days of receiving the original certification, the local franchising authority shall determine whether the operator qualifies for deregulation and shall notify the operator in writing of its decision, although this 90-day period shall be tolled for so long as it takes the operator to respond to a proper request for information by the local franchising authority. An operator may appeal to the Commission a local franchise authority's information request if the operator seeks to challenge the information request as unduly or unreasonably burdensome. If the local franchising authority finds that the operator does not qualify for deregulation, its notice shall state the grounds for that decision. The operator may appeal the local franchising authority's decision to the Commission within 30 days.
47 CFR Section 76.990(b)(3) requires that within 30 days of being served with a local franchising authority's notice that the local franchising authority intends to file a cable programming services tier rate complaint, an operator may certify to the local franchising authority that it meets the criteria for qualification as a small cable operator. This certification shall be filed in accordance with the cable programming services rate complaint procedure set forth in § 76.1402. Absent a cable programming services rate complaint, the operator may request a declaration of CPST rate deregulation from the Commission pursuant to § 76.7.
On March 26, 1999, the Commission released a
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection,
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2008.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 2028, FR 2572, or FR 2900 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
Additionally, commenters should send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to 202-395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Michelle Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications 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. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
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 August 29, 2008.
In connection with this application, the applicant also has applied to acquire Cody Services Corporation, Brockton, Massachusetts, and thereby engage in loan servicing activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 30, 2008.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 or send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
Exploratory Research with People Living with Lung Cancer—New—Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Lung cancer is the most common cancer and leading cause of cancer related mortality in the world. Each year, over 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with lung cancer and a similar number die from the disease. Due to the relatively low survival rate for individuals with lung cancer (the five-year survival rate of all patients with lung cancer is only 15%), the needs of individuals affected by lung cancer have received less attention in health care research than the needs of individuals with other types of cancer, resulting in a gap in knowledge about a significant number of people living with the diagnosis of lung cancer.
CDC proposes to conduct formative research to improve understanding of the challenges and needs of individuals living with lung cancer. Because smoking is one of the primary risk factors for lung cancer, the research will include respondents with different types of smoking history in order to explore the influence of smoking status on individual experience with cancer diagnosis, stigma and discrimination, and counseling and support services. For example, individuals who have never smoked may face challenges in obtaining an initial diagnosis of lung cancer, while current or former smokers may feel subject to judgments or blame from others, including medical providers as well as family and friends.
Information will be collected during in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 27 respondents between the ages of 30 and 80 who have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Three different types of respondents will be recruited from partnering clinical practices in two U.S. cities: Individuals who are Smokers (9), individuals who are Former Smokers (9), and individuals who Never Smoked (9). Each telephone interview will last approximately one hour.
The results of this exploratory research project will inform future research activities and the development of health-related information and services for the benefit of individuals living with lung cancer. Project goals support the goals for cancer and communication described in Healthy People 2010.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 or send comments to Maryam Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Formative Research on Lung Cancer Screening—New—Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Currently, there is scientific debate about the value of lung cancer screening. For people in whom lung cancer is found and treated at an early, localized stage, the five-year survival rate is roughly 49%. However, only 16% of people with lung cancer are diagnosed at this early, localized stage. Screening for lung cancer using chest x-rays (CXR) was widely practiced, but studies have shown that CXR with or without sputum cytology does not reduce mortality from lung cancer. Studies are currently underway to provide more information about the effectiveness of other types of screening tests, such as computed tomography (CT) scans and spiral CT scans.
The purpose of this project is to conduct formative research to gather information from adult health care consumers and primary care physicians about experiences and practices related to lung cancer screening and testing as
The proposed project will use focus groups to gather information about the target audiences' experiences and practices related to lung cancer screening and testing. If warranted from focus group data with adult consumers, follow-up personal interviews will be conducted with selected focus group participants, especially those reporting experience with screening tests, such as spiral computed tomography (CT).
A total of 16 focus groups will be conducted at professional focus group facilities with long-term heavy smokers ages 40-70. The data will be collected from a convenience sample of adults who will be screened and recruited using lists maintained by the focus group facilities. Each focus group will include approximately nine participants and last two hours. If warranted, additional in-depth interviews will be conducted with up to 16 focus group participants.
Eight telephone focus groups will be conducted with a random sample of primary care physicians recruited from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile list. Potential physician respondents will be mailed a screening packet to complete and return. Each focus group of physicians will include approximately six participants and last 75 minutes. Two alternates will be recruited for each physician focus group in order to ensure participation of the targeted number of respondents.
Information will be collected over the two-year project period. There are no costs to respondents except their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 198.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Rapid HIV Testing in Community Mental Health Settings Serving African Americans—New—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
People with chronic mental illness, including those with substance use disorders, are at increased risk of HIV compared with the general population. However, not enough is known about the risk behaviors, willingness to be tested for HIV and HIV prevalence among persons with chronic mental illness. In addition, the interrelations among diagnosis of HIV infection, compliance with medical care, subsequent risk behaviors, and the course of mental illness have not been well-described. Mental health clinics are an important setting for HIV rapid testing and promoting prevention efforts against the transmission of HIV infection.
The objectives of this project are to (1) demonstrate improved access to HIV testing and linkage to care in participating mental health care settings; and (2) describe the relationship between mental illness, HIV risk behaviors, and access to testing and services, in order to inform the development of optimal prevention interventions for persons with severe mental illness. Staff at selected implementation sites will offer testing for HIV to clients and administer a brief survey to assess risk behaviors, previous access to similar testing services, and mental health symptoms.
CDC is requesting approval for a 2-year clearance for data collection. Data
CDC estimates the response rate will be approximately 90%. Of the 644 persons approached who agree to be surveyed, it is estimated that 95% of persons will meet the eligibility criteria and 98% will be able to provide informed consent. Therefore, the goal will be to approach 716 persons annually for participation in the study. The structured interview will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary. Data collection will provide important insights into the relationship between HIV/STI risk behaviors and psychiatric illness.
There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Office of Head Start (OHS).
Notice of Public Comment on Tribal Consultation Session to be held on September 11, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona.
Pursuant to the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, notice is hereby given of a one-day Tribal Consultation Session to be held between the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start leadership and the leadership of Tribal governments operating Head Start (including Early Head Start) programs. The purpose of the Consultation Session is to discuss ways to better meet the needs of Indian, including Alaska Native, children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)].
The Consultation Session will be held on September 11, 2008, at the Hyatt Regency Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona.
Renée Perthuis, Acting Regional Program Manager, American Indian/Alaska Native Program Branch, Office of Head Start, e-mail
The Department of Health and Human Services would like to invite leaders of Tribal governments operating Head Start (including Early Head Start) programs to participate in a formal Consultation Session with OHS leadership. The Consultation Session will take place on Thursday, September 11, 2008, at the Hyatt Regency Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona.
The purpose of the Consultation Session is to solicit input on ways to better meet the needs of Indian, including Alaska Native, children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations. Specific topics will include policy, research, Head Start/Early Head Start conversion, program quality, and monitoring.
Tribal leaders and designated representatives interested in submitting written testimony or topics for the Consultation Session agenda should contact Renée Perthuis at
The Consultation Session will be conducted with elected or appointed leaders of Tribal governments and their designated representatives [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)(A)]. Representatives from Tribal organizations and Native non-profit organizations are welcome to attend as observers. Those wishing to participate in the discussions must have a copy of a letter signed by an elected or appointed official or their designee, which authorizes them to serve as a representative of the Tribe. This should be submitted not less than three days in advance of the Consultation Session to Renée Perthuis at 202-205-9721 (fax).
A detailed report of the Consultation Session will be prepared and made available within 90 days of the consultation to all Tribal governments receiving funds for Head Start (including Early Head Start) programs.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Labeling OTC Skin Protectant Drug Products.” This guidance provides recommendations on how to label over-the-counter (OTC) skin protectant drug products. An OTC skin protectant active ingredient can be combined with another OTC skin protectant active ingredient or OTC external analgesic, first aid antiseptic, or sunscreen active ingredients. Each of these combinations has specific labeling requirements, and therefore labeling of OTC skin protectant drug products is complex. This guidance is designed to clarify the permitted combinations of active ingredients along with the corresponding required labeling.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by October 3, 2008.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Michael L. Koenig, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 5424, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2090.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Labeling OTC Skin Protectant Drug Products.” In the
Because OTC skin protectant active ingredients can be combined with active ingredients from other OTC drug product categories, this draft guidance is based upon the following rulemakings: (1) Final rule for OTC skin protectant drug products (68 FR 33362, June 4, 2003); (2) final rule for format and content of labeling of OTC drugs (64 FR 13254, March 17, 1999); (3) proposed rule for OTC sunscreen drug products (72 FR 49070, August 27, 2007); (4) proposed rule for OTC external analgesic drug products (48 FR 5852, February 8, 1983); and (5) proposed rule for OTC first aid antiseptic drug products (56 FR 33644, July 22, 1991).
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on labeling OTC skin protectant drug products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Director (OD), Office of Extramural Research (OER), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
The technology involves antibodies and antisera that recognize members of the ArfGap protein family, including the following proteins:
• ACAP1, which is related to ASAP1, a putative oncogene that regulates cancer cell invasion into normal tissues. ACAP1 regulates integrins, which are critical for cell movement associated with cancer cell invasion and is a target of the oncogene Akt.
• ACAP2, which is related to ASAP1, a putative oncogene that regulates cancer cell invasion into normal tissues.
• AGAP2 (also known as PIKE-A), ASAP1 (also called AMAP1 and DDEFl), and ASAP3 all exhibit elevated expression levels in cancer cells compared to non-transformed cells and as putative oncogenes have been implicated as regulators of cancer cell invasion into normal tissues and contributors to brain, eye and breast, and liver cancers, respectively.
• ARAP1 (also called Centaurin Delta 2), which has been implicated as a regulator of epidermal growth factor receptor, which plays important roles in several malignancies.
• ARAP2 (also called Centaurin Delta 1), GIT1 and GIT2; all three of which have been implicated as regulators of cell migration required for cancer cell invasion into normal tissues and metastasis.
• ARAP3, a target of the Src oncogene, has been implicated as a regulator of cell movement and signaling.
• ArfGAP1, which is critical to cell function, including protein trafficking.
• ASAP2 (also known as PAG3 or as Pap in the 1999 Molecular and Cellular Biology publication), is highly related to ASAP1, which has been implicated as a regulator of cancer cell invasion into normal tissues.
The table below summarizes the antibodies and antisera available against different ArfGap proteins. Each material has been raised or generated to the peptide sequence listed.
• Immunoblotting and other procedures to identify the ArfGap proteins in cells and tissues;
• Identifying tumors, such as those found in brain, breast, eye and liver cancers, based on protein expression levels;
• Examining the invasive behavior of tumor cells.
The antibodies and antisera have been raised or generated to the particular peptide sequence given in the table above. These are available as Research Tools.
Paul A. Randazzo
Patent protection is not being pursued for this technology.
• HHS Reference No. E-220-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-220-2008/1—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-220-2008/2—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-221-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-221-2008/1—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-221-2008/2—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-222-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-242-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-243-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-244-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-245-2008/0—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-245-2008/1—Research Tool.
• HHS Reference No. E-252-2008/0—Research Tool.
Available for non-exclusive biological materials licensing only.
Surekha Vathyam, Ph.D.; 301-435-4076;
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR Part 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent Application 11/137,114 entitled “Scopolamine For The Treatment Of Depression And Anxiety” [HHS Ref. E-175-2004/0-US-01], PCT Application PCT/US2006/019335 [HHS Ref. E-175-2004/0-PCT-02] and all continuing applications and foreign counterparts (Europe, Australia and Canada), to Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which has offices in Pt. Richmond, CA. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to and/or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to:
A worldwide exclusive license for the use of scopolamine for treatment of depression, including major depressive disorders (MDD), wherein the administration of scopolamine is intravenous, through the buccal membrane, intranasal, intramuscular or through a skin patch.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before October 3, 2008, will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: David A. Lambertson, Ph.D., Technology Licensing Specialist, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-4632; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; E-mail:
The invention concerns the use of scopolamine for the treatment of depression, including major depressive disorders (MDD). Although scopolamine has been employed in the treatment of nausea and motion sickness, the suitability of scopolamine for treating MDD was unrecognized prior to this invention. Current MDD treatments can be ineffective in large percentage of patients and typically do not take effect until 4 weeks after administration. In contrast, treatment with scopolamine has a wide-ranging and rapid effect, suggesting it can be effective either as a stand alone treatment or as a treatment for patients who are unresponsive to currently available drugs.
A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) is simultaneously being negotiated to accompany the exclusive license agreement. The CRADA will involve the further development of the licensed technology between the National Institute of Mental Health and Transcept.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty (60) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7.
Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Applicants may also contact the National Institute of Mental Health regarding the CRADA opportunity. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice; request for public comment.
The Coast Guard, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Minerals Management Service, in concert with representatives from various State governments, industry, environmental interest groups, and the general public, developed the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines to reflect the consensus agreement of the entire oil spill response community. This notice announces the PREP 5-year exercise cycle, 2009 through 2013, and requests comments from the public, and requests volunteers from industry to participate in the scheduled PREP Area exercises. The new schedule adjustment from 3 years to 5 years was created to align with the Department of Homeland Security's National Exercise 5-year Schedule.
Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before October 3, 2008.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0521 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
If you have questions on this notice, or need general information regarding the PREP or the 5-year exercise schedule, contact Lieutenant Shawn Essert, Office of Contingency Exercises (CG-535), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-2149, or e-mail
We encourage you to respond to this notice by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2008-0521), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
In 1994, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) of the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of the Interior, coordinated the development of the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines to ensure compliance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) pollution response exercise requirements (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)). The guiding principles of PREP distinguish between internal and external exercises. Internal exercises are conducted within the planholder's organization. External exercises extend beyond the planholder's organization to involve other members of the response community. External exercises are separated into two categories: Area exercises, and Government-initiated, unannounced exercises. External exercises are designed to evaluate the entire pollution response mechanism in a given geographic Area to ensure adequate response preparedness.
Area exercises involve the entire response community including Federal, State, local, tribal, and non-government organizations, and industry participants; therefore, these Area exercises require more extensive planning than other oil spill response exercises. The PREP Guidelines describe all of these exercises in more detail.
A National Schedule Coordination Committee (NSCC) was established for scheduling Area exercises. The NSCC is comprised of personnel representing the four Federal regulating agencies—the USCG, EPA, MMS, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). Since 1994, the NSCC published a triennial schedule of Area exercises. Starting in 2008, NSCC will publish a schedule of Area exercises every 5 years.
The PREP Area exercise schedule and exercise design manuals are available on the Internet at
This notice announces the next 5-year schedule of the Area exercises. The PREP schedule for calendar years 2009 through 2013 for Government-led and Industry-led Area exercises is available on the Internet in the docket for this notice at
If a company wants to volunteer for an Area exercise, a company representative may call either the Coast Guard or EPA on-scene coordinator for times and locations. If you have concerns or recommended improvements to the Government-led PREP exercises, please submit those using the procedures described under the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-day Notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by September 3, 2008. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Joanna Johnson, Communications Branch, Business Management Office, Operational Process and Technology, TSA-32, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220; telephone (571) 227-3651; facsimile (703) 603-0822.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA uses system annual through-put as a primary factor in determining pipeline system criticality. This figure is based on the amount of hazardous liquid or natural gas product transported through a pipeline in one year (
Office of the Chief Information Officer, 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.
Executive Order 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards “requires that Federal agencies provide the highest quality service to our customers by identifying them and determining what they think about our services. The surveys covered in the request for a generic clearance will provide HUD a means to gather this data directly from our customers. HUD will conduct various customer satisfaction surveys to gather feedback and data directly from our customers to determine the kind and quality of services and products they want and expect to receive.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number (2535-0116) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; 202-395-6974.
Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department or Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410; telephone: 202-708-2374, (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail Ms. Deitzer at
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 affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2008, is 3
Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the
Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.
The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2008, is 4
For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:
Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Pub. L. 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).
Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of
The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2008, is 3
The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.
Sections 211, 221, 224, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, that a meeting of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, September 18, 2008.
The Commission was established pursuant to Pub. L. 99-647. The purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated resource management plan for those lands and waters within the Corridor.
The meeting will convene on September 18, 2008 at 9 a.m. at Banneker Industries, located at 582 Great Road, North Smithfield, RI for the following reasons:
1. Approval of Minutes
2. Chairman's Report
3. Executive Director's Report
4. Financial Budget
5. Public Input
It is anticipated that about thirty people will be able to attend the session in addition to the Commission members.
Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made prior to the meeting to: Jan H. Reitsma, Executive Director, John H. Chafee, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895, Tel.: (401) 762-0250.
Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Jan H. Reitsma, Executive Director of the Commission at the aforementioned address.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of Reestablishment.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), after consultation with the General Services Administration, has reestablished the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Alternatives Workgroup (Workgroup) for 2 years. The Workgroup provides an opportunity for stakeholders to give policy and technical input on efforts to develop and implement sea lamprey control techniques alternative to lampricides in Lake Champlain.
The Council's charter will be filed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act August 19, 2008.
Dave Tilton, Fish and Wildlife Service, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Complex, 11 Lincoln Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452, 802-872-0629, extension 12.
The Workgroup conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). It reports to the Secretary through the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative (Cooperative) and functions solely as an advisory body. The Workgroup provides recommendations and advice to the Cooperative. Specific responsibilities of the Workgroup are to provide recommendations on: (1) Feasible and appropriate sea lamprey management methods alternative to lampricides; (2) funding priorities for research and/or demonstration projects; (3) facilitating coordinated research between Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes; and (4) development of requests for proposals, project proposals, and research efforts affecting the Lake Champlain Basin.
The Workgroup consists of up to 20 members representing Federal and State agencies and stakeholders. In addition, up to five of the members may be special Government employees, selected for their scientific expertise. All members are knowledgeable about Lake Champlain fishery management issues, including sea lamprey control.
The Certification for reestablishment is published below.
I hereby certify that the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Alternatives Workgroup (Workgroup) is necessary and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior through the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Long-term Program of Sea Lamprey Control in Lake Champlain as published in 2001 (66 FR 46651, September 6, 2001).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability for review and comment.
We, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise for public review and comment.
We must receive any comments on the draft recovery plan on or before November 3, 2008.
The draft recovery plan and reference materials are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Roy Averill-Murray, Desert Tortoise Recovery Coordinator, at the above address or telephone number.
Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to develop and implement recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened, unless such plans will not promote the conservation of the species. We and the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, have been delegated responsibility for administering the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice, and an opportunity for public review and comment, be provided during development of recovery plans. We will consider all information presented during the public comment period on each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive comments may or may not result in changes to a recovery plan. However, any substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation will be forwarded to appropriate Federal agencies or other interested entities so that they can take these comments into account during the implementation of their respective management programs. Individual responses to submitted comments will not be provided.
The desert tortoise is a large, herbivorous reptile that can reach 20 to 38 centimeters (cm) (8 to 15 inches (in)) in carapace length and 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 in) in shell height. Hatchlings emerge from eggs at about 5 cm (2 in) in length. Adults have a domed carapace and relatively flat, unhinged plastrons (lower shells). Their shells are high-domed and greenish-tan to dark brown in color with tan scute (horny plate on the shell) centers. Adult desert tortoises weigh 3.6 to 6.8 kilograms (8 to 15 pounds). The forelimbs have heavy, claw-like scales and are flattened for digging. Hind limbs are more elephantine.
Throughout most of the Mojave Desert, the desert tortoise occupies a variety of habitats: From flats and slopes dominated by creosote bush (
The desert tortoise occurs in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts in southern California, southern Nevada, Arizona, and the southwestern tip of Utah in the United States, as well as in Sonora and northern Sinaloa in Mexico. The listed Mojave population of the desert tortoise includes those animals living north and west of the Colorado River in the Mojave Desert of California, Nevada, Arizona, and southwestern Utah, and in the Sonoran (Colorado) Desert in California. A recovery plan was published in 1994 and critical habitat was also designated in all four States supporting the species.
Three other tortoise species in the genus
The vast majority of threats to the desert tortoise or its habitat are associated with human land uses. The threats identified in the 1994 Recovery Plan, and that formed the basis for listing the tortoise as a threatened species, continue to affect the species. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from urbanization, off-highway vehicle use in the desert, linear features such as roads and utility corridors, livestock grazing and mining, and military activities were cited as some of the primary reasons for the decline in desert tortoise populations. Disease and increased incidence of fire in the Mojave Desert have also been implicated in desert tortoise declines.
The data amassed between 1979 and 2002 from permanent study plots throughout the range of the species were used to explore regional and recovery-unit-level analyses and trends, and to develop within-population spatial analyses at various scales on the landscape and in different management units. Despite the challenges in comparing data from year to year, the apparent downward trend in desert tortoise populations in the western portion of the range that was identified at the time of listing is considered ongoing. Results from other portions of the range were inconclusive, but recent surveys of some populations found too few tortoises to produce population estimates, suggesting that declines may have occurred more broadly.
Collectively, the various analyses that have been performed do not suggest that implementation of specific management actions over time has abated declines of, or resulted in detectable increases in, desert tortoise populations across most of the range. The life history of the species (i.e., delayed reproductive maturity, low reproductive rates, and relatively high mortality early in life) is such that observing relatively rapid increases in populations is highly unlikely, even over the 23-year monitoring period evaluated.
Despite the clear demonstration that the threats identified at the time of listing impact individual tortoises, there are few data available to evaluate or quantify the effects of threats on desert tortoise populations. While current research results can lead to predictions about how local tortoise abundance should be affected by the presence of threats, quantitative estimates of the magnitude of these threats, or of their relative importance, have not yet been developed.
While precise correlations between the multitude of threats and desert tortoise populations have not been clearly shown, a great deal of effort has been put forth by research scientists and land managers to actively conserve the species. Substantive datasets pertaining to disease, non-native invasive plant species, and fire have been assembled over the years that will be used to inform decisions relative to desert tortoise recovery. Conservation actions such as land acquisitions, installing protective fencing, retiring grazing allotments, limiting off-highway vehicle access, and implementing restoration projects have been important recovery and management efforts based on our current state of knowledge regarding the threats facing the species.
The revised strategy emphasizes partnerships to direct and maintain focus on implementing recovery actions and a system to track implementation and effectiveness of those actions. The strategic elements listed herein are part of a multi-faceted approach designed to improve the 1994 Recovery Plan. The goals of the revised recovery plan are recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. The objectives and recovery criteria address demography (maintain self-sustaining populations of desert tortoises within each recovery unit into the future); distribution (maintain well-distributed populations of desert tortoises throughout each recovery unit); and habitat (ensure that habitat within each recovery unit is protected and managed to support long-term viability of desert tortoise populations. The strategic elements include the following: (1) Develop, support, and build partnerships to facilitate recovery; (2) protect existing populations and habitat, instituting habitat restoration where necessary; (3) augment depleted populations in a strategic, experimental manner; (4) monitor progress toward recovery, includes population trend and effectiveness monitoring; (5) conduct applied research and modeling in support of recovery efforts within a strategic framework; and (6) implement a formal adaptive management program that integrates new information and utilizes conceptual models that link management actions to predicted responses by desert tortoise populations or their habitat. The success of this revised recovery strategy will rely heavily upon the involvement of our partners and our commitment to implementing the strategic elements listed above coupled with a functioning adaptive management program.
We solicit written comments on the draft revised recovery plan described in this notice. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in development of a final revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of final revised marine mammal stock assessment reports for three stocks of northern sea otters in Alaska; response to comments.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock assessment reports for the three stocks of northern sea otters (
Send requests for printed copies of the final stock assessment reports to: Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (800) 362-5148. Copies of the final revised stock assessment reports are also available on the Internet in Adobe Acrobat format at
One of the goals of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407) is to ensure that stocks of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States do not experience a level of human-caused mortality and serious injury that is likely to cause the stock to be reduced below its optimum sustainable population level (OSP). OSP is defined as “ * * * the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.”
To help accomplish the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA requires the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare stock assessment reports for each marine mammal stock that occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These stock assessments are to be based on the best scientific information available and are, therefore, prepared in consultation with established regional scientific review groups. Each stock assessment must include:
(1) A description of the stock and its geographic range; (2) minimum population estimate, maximum net productivity rate, and current population trend; (3) estimate of human-caused mortality and serious injury; (4) commercial fishery interactions; (5) status of the stock; and (6) potential biological removal level (PBR). The PBR is defined as “ * * * the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP.” The PBR is the product of the minimum population estimate of the stock (N
Section 117 of the MMPA also requires the Service and the NMFS to review and revise the stock assessment reports: (a) At least annually for stocks that are specified as strategic stocks; (b) at least annually for stocks for which significant new information is available; and (c) at least once every 3 years for all other stocks.
A strategic stock is defined in the MMPA as a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR; (B) which, based on the best available
Draft 2008 stock assessment reports for the 3 Alaska stocks of northern sea otters were made available for a 90-day public review and comment period on February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6994). Prior to releasing them for pubic review and comment, the Service subjected the draft reports to internal technical review and to scientific review by the Alaska Regional Scientific Review Group established under the MMPA. Following the close of the comment period, the Service revised the stock assessments and prepared the final 2008 stock assessment reports.
We revised these final stock assessment reports based on public comments received (see below). The status of each stock remained unchanged from the draft revised SARs that were provided for public comment, and with the exception of the southwest Alaska stock, PBR levels were not changed. Estimates of fishery-related mortality and serious injury have been revised for all three stock assessment reports. We addressed responses to most of the public comments by adding new text for clarity.
A summary of the final revised stock assessment reports is presented in Table 1. The table lists each stock's N
The Service received 3 comments on the drafts stock assessment reports. The issues raised in those comments and our responses are provided below.
The authority for this action is the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability: Final comprehensive conservation plan and finding of no significant impact.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. In the final CCP, we describe how we will manage this refuge for the next 15 years.
A copy of the CCP may be obtained by writing to: Howard A. Phillips, Refuge Manager, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 329, Columbia, NC 27925. The CCP may also be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet site:
Howard A. Phillips; Telephone: 252/796-3004.
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. We started this process through a notice in the
Congress established the 12,000-acre Pungo National Wildlife Refuge in 1963 by the authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Fish
We announce our decision and the availability of the final CCP and FONSI for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA). The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Pocosin Lakes Refuge for the next 15 years.
The compatibility determinations for hunting; fishing; wildlife observation and photography; environmental education and interpretation; access for public uses; trapping of selected furbearers and feral hogs for nuisance animal management; refuge resource research studies; cooperative farming program; commercial photography; commercial tours and guiding; wood and reed gathering and cutting; and meetings of non-service agencies and organizations are all available in the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Improvement Act.
Approximately 130 copies of the Draft CCP/EA were made available for a 30-day public review period as announced in the
We developed four alternatives for management of the refuge and chose Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. We selected Alternative 2 based on the sound professional judgment of the staff and after considering the comments we received on the draft document. The primary focus under Alternative 2 will be to optimize management of the impoundments very intensively by controlling water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. Implementing the CCP will result in moderate program increases to address the refuge's highest priorities. We will manage pine forests and marshes with prescribed fire and will manage the vegetative composition of habitats in selected areas. Waterfowl will be surveyed on a routine basis. We will develop inventory plans for all species and implement them in selected habitats. We will develop and implement a black bear management plan. The visitor center will be maintained by volunteers and cooperating agency personnel supplementing refuge personnel. The volunteer program will be expanded by recruiting volunteers to contribute 4,000 hours of service. We will construct two pads for recreational vehicles in order to attract volunteers. There will be 17.5 staff members dedicated to refuge management and 7.5 staff members dedicated to fire management. The six priority public uses will be allowed, with the refuge staff conducting environmental education and interpretation programs to meet local needs.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of renewal of a currently approved information collection.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for approval and renewal of information collections, OMB Control No. 1076-0017, Financial Assistance and Social Service Program application form 5-6601.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 3, 2008.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments regarding this proposal to the Desk Officer of the Department of the Interior by facsimile to (202) 395-6566. You may also send comments by e-mail to:
Copies of comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to Kevin Sanders, Acting Chief, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone (202) 513-7621.
Copies of the collection of information form or requests for additional information should be directed to Kevin Sanders, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-4513, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone (202) 513-7621.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs needs the information collected. Funding of these programs is authorized by 25 U.S.C. 13 to make determinations of eligibility for the BIA's social service financial assistance programs: General Assistance, Child Welfare Assistance, Miscellaneous Assistance, and services only (no cash assistance).
A 60-day notice for public comments was published in the
The Department of the Interior invites comments being sent to OMB on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the BIA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the BIA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number. Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number. Please note that all comments received will be available for public review. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address or other personally identifiable information, be advised that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made public at any time. While you may request that we withhold your personally identifiable information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We do not consider anonymous comments. All comments from representatives of businesses or organizations will be made public in their entirety.
OMB is required to respond to this request within 60 days after publication of this notice in the
Burden means the total time or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collection, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information, to search data sources to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northeast California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, Sept. 18 and 19, 2008, in the Conference Room of the BLM Surprise Field Office, 602 Cressler St., Cedarville, CA. On Sept. 18, the members convene at the Surprise Field Office at 10 a.m. and depart immediately for a field tour focusing on cultural resources. Members of the public are welcome. They must provide their own transportation in a high clearance four-wheel-drive vehicle and their own lunch. On Sept. 19, the meeting runs from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Surprise Field Office conference room. Time for public comment is reserved at 11 a.m.
Tim Burke, BLM Alturas Field Office manager, (530) 233-4666; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. Fontana, (530) 252-5332.
The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in northeast California and the northwest corner of Nevada. At this meeting, agenda topics will include an update on implementation of BLM resource management plans, the proposed Kramer Ranch land exchange, a status report on wind energy development proposals and cultural resource management. Members also will hear status reports from the Alturas, Eagle Land and Surprise field offices. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and lunch. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order partially revokes a Public Land Order insofar as it affects approximately 1,099.51 acres, more or less, of public lands withdrawn from surface entry and mining for the Bureau of Land Management to protect public
Jacqueline Gratton, BLM, Nevada State Office, P.O. Box 12000, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, Nevada 89520, 775-861-6532.
Reclamation has been completed at the County Line mine site and the Bureau of Land Management has determined that the withdrawal is no longer needed to protect the public lands.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:
1. Public Land Order No. 7619 (69 FR 62286 (2004)), which withdrew land from surface entry and mining on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management to protect public health and safety and to perform reclamation activities at the County Line mine site, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described lands:
The areas described aggregate 1,099.51 acres, more or less, in Mineral and Nye counties.
2. At 9 a.m. on September 3, 2008, the lands described in Paragraph 1 will be opened to all forms of appropriation under the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications received at or prior to 9 a.m. on September 3, 2008, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of filing.
3. At 9 a.m. on September 3, 2008, the lands described in Paragraph 1 shall be opened to location and entry under the United States mining laws subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. Appropriation of the lands under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38 (2000), shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 19, 2008. Pursuant to section 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 August 19, 2008.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
Proposed amendment of existing Privacy Act systems of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, is issuing public notice of its intent to amend 2 existing Privacy Act system of records notices to add a new routine use to authorize the disclosure of records to individuals involved in responding to a breach of Federal data.
Comments must be received by September 15, 2008.
Any persons interested in commenting on these proposed amendments may do so by submitting comments in writing to the Office of Chief Information Officer, Willie Chism, Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240, or by e-mail to
Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Surface Mining, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
On May 22, 2007, in a memorandum for the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies entitled “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” the Office of Management and Budget directed agencies to develop and publish a routine use for disclosure of information in connection with response and remedial efforts in the event of a data breach. This routine use will serve to protect the interest of the individuals whose information is at issue by allowing agencies to take appropriate steps to facilitate a timely and effective response to the breach, thereby improving its ability to prevent, minimize or remedy any harm resulting from a compromise of data maintained in its systems of records. Accordingly, the Director, Office of Surface Mining, is proposing to add a new routine use to authorize disclosure to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons, of information maintained in the following systems in the event of a data breach. These amendments will be effective as proposed at the end of the comment period unless comments are received which would require a contrary determination. The Department will publish a revised notice if changes are made based upon a review of comments received.
OSM-8, “Employment and Financial Interest Statements—States and Other Federal Agencies.” (Published April 9, 1999, 64 FR 17412-17413)
“Blaster Certification—Interior/OSMRE-12”. (Published April 9, 1999, 64 FR 17413)
To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and
(b) The Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interest, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c) The disclosure is made to such agencies, entities and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 27, 2007, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by twelve U.S. producers.
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on July 28, 2008. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4024 (July 2008), entitled
By order of the Commission.
60-Day Notice of New Information Collection Under Review: NICS Act State Record Estimates Information Collection Form.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until October 3, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
The proposed information collection is available line at
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180), including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of BJS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If 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.
National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice.
Solicitation for a cooperative agreement.
Through this twelve month cooperative agreement NIC will build on work started in 2002 to implement systemwide evidence based policy and practices (EBP). This award will complete work already started in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Orange County, California, to enable them to sustain their rates of ongoing progress in terms of measured recidivism outcomes and other productivity indicators through time. Measured progress must be made in all organizational and system alignment areas indicated in the strategic plans already developed by both sites.
All applications are due by 4 p.m. EDT on August 21, 2008.
Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First St., NW., Room 5007, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date.
Hand delivered applications should be brought to 500 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. At the front desk, call 202-307-3106, extension 0, for pickup.
Faxed applications will not be accepted. Only e-mailed applications which are submitted via
A copy of this announcement and the required application forms can be downloaded from the NIC Web site at
All technical or programmatic questions concerning this announcement should be directed to Dot Faust at
The existing implementation initiative expanded to two metropolitan county sites in 2007, taking with it lessons learned and the implementation tools developed during the Maine/Illinois phase. The two urban sites identified in 2007 (Maricopa County, Arizona, and Orange County, California) were deliberately chosen because of their potential to take already established evidence based policy and practice (EBP) to higher, more advanced levels, and to provide experience implementing evidence based change in large, complex county governments. During most of 2007 and 2008, the Project Team has met with a variety of system stakeholders in these sites to analyze gaps in EBP implementation, develop strategic plans that address these gaps and move the systems forward, and to establish both feedback loops and evaluation plans to guide these two large urban jurisdictions toward an advanced stage of EBP implementation.
Due to agency policy, NIC obligates itself to complete this final twelve-month phase of existing work. In no way does this reflect any dissatisfaction on the part of NIC or the two implementation sites with the current assistance provider. The current provider is not barred from this competition.
By September of 2009, the following benchmarks need to have been addressed or need to be included in ongoing improvement strategies as described:
Client Satisfaction and officer/offender relationships will have been defined and measured.
It is requested that the program narrative text be limited to no more that 10 double spaced pages, excluding statements of organizational or individual capacity and summaries of the experiences and capabilities of key project staff and/or the individual applicant. Please submit summaries of experience and expertise and not full curricula vitae. Also note in your application any technical skills, experience or credentials that make you or your organization distinctly qualified to deliver the specified products.
Public law 93-415.
National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice.
Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement.
The National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division, is seeking applications for the development of a document that provides jail practitioners with a guide on developing and implementing programs and activities for jail inmates, as part of an overall strategy to manage inmate behavior.
Applications must be received by 4 p.m. EDT, Friday, August 15, 2008.
Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street, NW., Room 5007, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date.
Hand delivered applications should be brought to 500 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. At the front desk, dial 7-3106, ext. 0 for pickup. Faxed or e-mailed applications will not be accepted. Electronic applications can be submitted via
A copy of this announcement and the required application forms can be downloaded from the NIC Web page at
All technical or programmatic questions concerning this announcement should be directed to Robbye Braxton-Mintz, Correctional Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division. Ms. Mintz can be reached on 1-800-995-6423 ext. 44562 or by e-mail at
Assessing the risks and needs of each inmate at various points during his/her detention;
Assigning inmates to appropriate housing;
Meeting inmates' basic needs;
Defining and conveying expectations for inmate behavior;
Supervising inmates;
Keeping inmates productively occupied.
If a jail fully and properly implements all six elements, it should experience a significant reduction in the negative inmate behavior often experienced in jails, such as vandalism, violence, rule violations, and disrespectful behavior toward staff and other inmates.
The NIC Jails Division offers training and technical assistance on inmate behavior management, but wishes to develop additional tools that will help jails implement the individual elements.
The document will cover the following, at a minimum:
The benefits of implementing inmate activities and programs in jails related to reducing idle time and negative behavior. The document must cite the available evidence of the relationship between inmate activities and programs and the reduction of negative inmate behavior. This will involve identifying research on this topic and contact with a variety of jails to obtain information on their experience. In some cases, studies may be available. In other cases, only anecdotal evidence may be given. The author will identify, review, and cite both types of evidence.
The role of jail administration and management staff in providing leadership and support for reducing negative inmate behavior through implementation of activities and programs. The author will stress the importance of the jail administrator's demonstrated commitment to this and provide concrete examples of how the administrator can actively demonstrate commitment.
Determination of need for inmate activities and programs. The document will discuss needs in two primary areas. The first area focuses on the needs of the jail regarding reduction of negative inmate behavior. The document will explain the collection and analysis of data on the types and frequency of inmate misbehavior and the relationship between misbehavior and lack of productive activities for inmates. The
Goal setting. The document will describe how to set measurable goals for inmate activities and programs related to both areas of need noted above. The document will describe a process for setting realistic goals that can be measured, determining time frames for measuring goal achievement, and devising methods of measuring goal achievement.
Planning, designing, and implementing activities and programs. The document will describe considerations in planning, designing, and implementing programs that will contribute to achieving goals related to reduction of negative inmate behavior and meeting inmates' needs. This will include consideration of goals, identification of the inmate populations targeted, funding required, space and equipment needs, staffing needs (whether staff or volunteers), and the specific tasks and timelines required for implementation. It will also include a discussion of commonly encountered barriers to planning and implementing activities and programs—such as those related to resources, staff support, administrative commitment, and suggest strategies for overcoming the barriers, with examples from jails that have experienced this. Finally, the document will stress the importance of documenting activities and programs, with specific suggestions on the documentation necessary to evaluate both the quality of implementation and progress in achieving goals.
An overview of the range and types of inmate activities and programs that may be developed to reduce negative inmate behavior and meet inmates' needs. The document will provide examples of activities and programs that range from no-cost to high-cost and from simple to complex. It will also note, for example, the types of staff (jail staff, volunteers, non-jail personnel) that are necessary to implement the activities and programs. It is important that the document clearly convey that the jail has a variety of options that are no to low-cost and that some level of productive activities and programs can be implemented in any jail, regardless of size or resource levels. The document will also describe potential resources the jail can draw upon in implementing activities and programs.
Evaluation of activities and programs (assessing both the quality of implementation and success in achieving goals). The document will describe the data collection and analysis necessary for evaluation, and it will describe evaluation processes.
Revision of activities and programs based on evaluation Project Description: The awardee will produce a completed document that has received initial editing from a professional editor. NIC will be responsible for the final editing process and document design, but the awardee will remain available during this time to answer questions and to make revisions to the document.
Meet with NIC project manager for an overview of the project and initial planning;
Review materials provided by NIC;
Complete the initial outline of document content and layout;
Meet with NIC project manager to review, discuss and agree on content outline;
Research content topics and related resources;
Submit draft sections of document to NIC for review;
Revise draft sections for NIC's approval;
Submit document to editor hired by awardee for first content edit;
Submit a draft of entire document to NIC for review;
Revise document for NIC's approval; and
Submit document to NIC in hard copy and on disk in Microsoft Word format.
Throughout the project period, the awardee should make provision for meetings with NIC staff, to be held in Washington, DC, at critical planning and review points in document development.
Applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced and reference the NIC Application Number and Title provided in this announcement.
Submit an original and three copies of your full proposal (program and budget narrative, application forms and assurances). The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. As previously stated, electronic submissions will only be accepted via
The narrative portion of the application should include, at a minimum, a:
Brief paragraph indicating the applicants' understanding of the purpose of the document and the issues to be addressed;
Brief paragraph that summaries the project goals and objectives;
Clear description of the methodology that will be used to complete the project and achieve its goals;
Statement or chart of measurable project milestones and time lines for the completion of each milestone;
Description of the qualifications of the applicant organization and a resume for the principal and each staff member assigned to the project that documents relevant knowledge, skills and ability to carry out the project;
Minimum of three references for which the applicant has provided a similar service;
Budget that details all costs for the project, shows consideration for all contingencies for this project, and notes a commitment to work within the proposed budget; and
Sample of a least one document completed by the applicant.
The applicant must specify its role in the production of the sample document(s).
Public Law 93-415.
Indication of a clear understanding of the project requirements;
Background, experience, and expertise of the proposed project staff, including any sub-contractors;
Effectiveness of the creative approach to the project;
Clear, concise description of all elements and tasks of the project, with sufficient and realistic time frames necessary to complete the tasks;
Technical soundness of project design and methodology;
Financial and administrative integrity of the proposal, including adherence to federal financial guidelines and processes;
A sufficiently detailed budget that shows consideration of all contingencies for this project and commitment to work within the budget proposed; and
Indication of availability to meet with NIC staff.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comment.
OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels (29 CFR 1910.177). The paperwork provisions of the Standard include a requirement that the manufacturer or a Registered Professional Engineer certify that repaired restraining devices and barriers meet the strength requirements specified in the Standard, and a requirement that defective wheels and wheel components be marked or tagged.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 3, 2008.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The certification records are used to assure that equipment has been properly repaired. The certification records also provide the most efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels (29 CFR 1910.177). OSHA is proposing to retain its current burden hour estimate of one (1) hour. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on September 3, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) and Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC (EN-Palisades) are co-holders of the Renewed Facility Operating License, No. DPR-20, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades). Palisades is a pressurized water nuclear reactor that is owned by EN-Palisades and operated by ENO. The facility is located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
By application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, and December 5, 2007, and January 24, March 17, April 22, and May 2, 2008, ENO, acting on behalf of itself and EN-Palisades, requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission), pursuant to Section 50.80 of Title 10 of the
EN-Palisades is currently a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Midwest Investment Company, LLC which, in turn, is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company which, in turn, is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, under the current corporate structure, Entergy Corporation is the indirect owner of 100 percent of EN-Palisades.
Under the proposed corporate restructuring, a new holding company, Enexus Energy Corporation (Enexus), will be created. Initially, the shareholders of Entergy Corporation will separately own the shares of Enexus and, as such, Enexus will be owned by the public. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company will become a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Enexus. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Enexus will acquire indirect control of 100 percent of EN-Palisades.
ENO, the operator of the Palisades facility, is currently a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 which, in turn, is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, Entergy Corporation is currently the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENO.
Under the proposed corporate restructuring, Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 will be eliminated and ENO will become a direct subsidiary of a new parent company called EquaGen LLC. EquaGen LLC will be owned in equal shares by two new intermediate holding companies as follows. Entergy EquaGen, Inc. is being created as a direct subsidiary of Entergy Corporation and will own 50 percent of EquaGen LLC. Similarly, Enexus EquaGen, LLC is being created as a direct subsidiary of Enexus and will also own 50 percent of EquaGen LLC. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Entergy Corporation and Enexus will each have indirect control of 50 percent of ENO.
Finally, ENO will be converted from a corporation to a limited liability company and its name will be changed from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear LLC. Under Delaware law, EquaGen Nuclear LLC will assume all of the rights and responsibilities of ENO, and it will be the same company (legal entity) both before and after the conversion and name change. Also, EN-Palisades will undergo a name change to become Enexus Nuclear Palisades, LLC. The staff understands that ENO will request an administrative license amendment to conform the Palisades license in the near future.
Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the
The request for a hearing is currently pending before the Commission. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1316, during the pendency of a hearing, the staff is expected to promptly proceed with the approval or denial of license transfer requests consistent with the staff's findings in its safety evaluation. Notice of the staff's action shall be promptly transmitted to the presiding officer and parties to the proceeding. Commission action on the pending hearing requests is being handled independently of this action.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80(a), no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application as supplemented and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements in the application as supplemented, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed indirect transfer of control of the license held by EN-Palisades to Enexus, as described herein, will not affect the qualifications of EN-Palisades as holder of the Palisades license. The indirect transfer of control of the license is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC. Furthermore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed corporate restructuring involving new intermediate and ultimate parent companies over ENO, as described herein, will not affect the qualifications of ENO as holder of the Palisades license. The indirect transfer of control of the license as held by ENO, to the extent affected by the proposed restructuring, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
The NRC staff concludes that the conversion of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear LLC would not constitute a direct transfer of the licenses to the extent held by ENO. Therefore, no consent to the proposed conversion is necessary.
The findings set forth above are supported by the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80,
1. EN-Palisades shall enter into the $700 million Support Agreement with Enexus Energy Corporation as described in the application, no later than the time the proposed transactions and indirect license transfer occurs. EN-Palisades shall take no action to cause Enexus Energy Corporation, or its successors and assigns, to void, cancel, or modify the Support Agreement or cause it to fail to perform, or impair its performance under the Support Agreement, without prior written consent of the NRC. The Support Agreement may not be amended or modified without 30 days prior written notice to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or his designee. An executed copy of the Support Agreement shall be submitted to the NRC no later than 30 days after the completion of the proposed transactions and the indirect license transfer. EN-Palisades shall inform the NRC in writing anytime it draws upon the Support Agreement.
2. The ten separate support guarantees from various Entergy subsidiaries, which total $315 million, including the support guarantee relating to Palisades, may be revoked when, and conditioned upon, implementation of the new $700 million Support Agreement at the time the proposed restructuring and indirect license transfer are completed.
3. Should the proposed corporate restructuring and establishment of Enexus not be completed within one year from the date of this Order, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by Order.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, and December 5, 2007, and January 24, March 17, April 22, and May 2, 2008, and the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (ENIP2) are co-holders of the Facility Operating License, No. DPR-26, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2). ENO and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (ENIP3) are co-holders of the Facility Operating License, No. DPR-64, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3). IP2 and IP3 are both pressurized water nuclear reactors that are owned by ENIP2 and ENIP3, respectively, and operated by ENO. The facilities are located in Westchester County, New York.
By application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, and December 5, 2007, and January 24, March 17, April 22, and May 2, 2008, ENO, acting on behalf of itself, ENIP2, and ENIP3, requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission), pursuant to Section 50.80 of Title 10 of the
ENIP2 is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3, LLC. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3, LLC is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, under the current corporate structure, Entergy Corporation is the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENIP2.
Under the proposed corporate restructuring, a new holding company, Enexus Energy Corporation (Enexus), will be created. Initially, the public shareholders of Entergy Corporation will separately own the shares of Enexus and, as such, Enexus will be owned by the public. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company, an indirect parent company of ENIP2, will become a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Enexus. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Enexus will acquire indirect control of 100 percent of ENIP2.
ENIP3 is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear New York Investment Company 1 which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #1. Seventy-five percent of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #1 is directly owned by Entergy Corporation while the remaining 25 percent is directly owned by Entergy Global, LLC. Entergy Global, LLC is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy International Holdings LTD which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, under the current corporate structure, Entergy Corporation is the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENIP3.
Under the proposed restructuring, Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #1 will become a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Enexus. Entergy Global, LLC, Entergy International Holdings LTD, and Entergy Nuclear New York Investment Company 1 will be eliminated. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Enexus will
ENO is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, Entergy Corporation is currently the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENO.
Under the proposed corporate restructuring, Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 will be eliminated and ENO will become a direct subsidiary of a new parent company called EquaGen LLC. EquaGen LLC will be owned in equal shares by two new intermediate holding companies as follows. Entergy EquaGen, Inc. is being created as a direct subsidiary of Entergy Corporation and will own 50 percent of EquaGen LLC. Similarly, Enexus EquaGen, LLC is being created as a direct subsidiary of Enexus and will also own 50 percent of EquaGen LLC. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Entergy Corporation and Enexus will each have indirect control of 50 percent of ENO.
Finally, ENO will be converted from a corporation to a limited liability company and its name will be changed from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear LLC. Under Delaware law, EquaGen Nuclear LLC will assume all of the rights and responsibilities of ENO, and it will be the same company (legal entity) both before and after the conversion and name change. Also, ENIP2 and ENIP3 will undergo name changes to become Enexus Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Enexus Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, respectively. The staff understands that ENO will submit requests for administrative license amendments to conform the affected licenses in the near future.
Notice of the requests for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the
Both of these requests for hearings are currently pending before the Commission. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1316, during the pendency of a hearing, the staff is expected to promptly proceed with the approval or denial of license transfer requests consistent with the staff's findings in its safety evaluation. Notice of the staff's action shall be promptly transmitted to the presiding officer and parties to the proceeding. Commission action on the pending hearing requests is being handled independently of this action.
Also, an intervenor from Oswego, New York, submitted two letters to the Commission with public comments dated January 21, 2008, along with an electronic transmission containing public comments dated January 27, 2008. The public comments are addressed by the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80(a), no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application as supplemented and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements in the application as supplemented, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed indirect transfer of control of the licenses held by ENIP2 and ENIP3 to Enexus, as described herein, will not affect the qualifications of ENIP2 and ENIP3 as holders of the IP2 and IP3 licenses, respectively. The indirect transfer of control of the licenses is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC. Furthermore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed corporate restructuring involving new intermediate and ultimate parent companies over ENO, as described herein, will not affect the qualifications of ENO as holder of the IP2 and IP3 licenses. The indirect transfer of control of the licenses as held by ENO, to the extent affected by the proposed restructuring, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
The NRC staff concludes that the conversion of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear LLC would not constitute a direct transfer of the licenses to the extent held by ENO. Therefore, no consent to the proposed conversion is necessary.
The findings set forth above are supported by the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80,
1. ENIP2 and ENIP3 shall enter into the $700 million Support Agreement with Enexus Energy Corporation as described in the application, no later than the time the proposed transactions and indirect license transfer occurs. ENIP2 and ENIP3 shall take no action to cause Enexus Energy Corporation, or its successors and assigns, to void, cancel, or modify the Support Agreement or cause it to fail to perform, or impair its performance under the Support Agreement, without prior written consent of the NRC. The Support Agreement may not be amended or modified without 30 days prior written notice to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or his designee. An executed copy of the Support Agreement shall be submitted to the NRC no later than 30 days after the completion of the proposed transactions and the indirect license transfer. ENIP2 and ENIP3 shall inform the NRC in writing anytime it draws upon the Support Agreement.
2. The ten separate support guarantees from various Entergy subsidiaries, which total $315 million, including the support guarantees relating to IP2 and IP3, may be revoked when, and conditioned upon, implementation of the new $700 million Support Agreement at the time the proposed restructuring and indirect license transfer are completed.
3. Should the proposed corporate restructuring and establishment of Enexus not be completed within one year from the date of this Order, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by Order.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, and December 5, 2007, and
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (ENIP2) are co-holders of the Facility Operating License, No. DPR-5, which authorizes the possession of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 (IP1). IP1 is a pressurized water nuclear reactor that is owned by ENIP2 and maintained by ENO. IP1 was permanently shut down in 1974 and placed in a safe storage condition pending decommissioning. The facility is located in Westchester County, New York.
By application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, and December 5, 2007, and January 24, March 17, April 22, and May 2, 2008, ENO, acting on behalf of itself and ENIP2, requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission), pursuant to Section 50.80 of Title 10 of the
ENIP2 is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3, LLC. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3, LLC is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, under the current corporate structure, Entergy Corporation is the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENIP2.
Under the proposed corporate restructuring, a new holding company, Enexus Energy Corporation (Enexus), will be created. Initially, the shareholders of Entergy Corporation will separately own the shares of Enexus and, as such, Enexus will be owned by the public. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company will become a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Enexus. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Enexus will acquire indirect control of 100 percent of ENIP2.
ENO is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, Entergy Corporation is currently the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENO.
Under the proposed corporate restructuring, Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 will be eliminated and ENO will become a direct subsidiary of a new parent company called EquaGen LLC. EquaGen LLC will be owned in equal shares by two new intermediate holding companies as follows. Entergy EquaGen, Inc. is being created as a direct subsidiary of Entergy Corporation and will own 50 percent of EquaGen LLC. Similarly, Enexus EquaGen, LLC is being created as a direct subsidiary of Enexus and will also own 50 percent of EquaGen LLC. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Entergy Corporation and Enexus will each have indirect control of 50 percent of ENO.
Finally, ENO will be converted from a corporation to a limited liability company and its name will be changed from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear LLC. Under Delaware law, EquaGen Nuclear LLC will assume all of the rights and responsibilities of ENO, and it will be the same company (legal entity) both before and after the conversion and name change. Also, ENIP2 will undergo a name change to become Enexus Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC. The staff understands that ENO will request an administrative license amendment to conform the IP1 license in the near future.
Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the
Both of these requests for hearings are currently pending before the Commission. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1316, during the pendency of a hearing, the staff is expected to promptly proceed with the approval or denial of license transfer requests consistent with the staff's findings in its safety evaluation. Notice of the staff's action shall be promptly transmitted to the presiding officer and parties to the proceeding. Commission action on the pending hearing requests is being handled independently of this action.
Also, an intervenor from Oswego, New York, submitted two letters to the Commission with public comments dated January 21, 2008, along with an electronic transmission containing public comments dated January 27, 2008. The public comments are addressed by the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80(a), no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application as supplemented and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements in the application as supplemented, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed indirect transfer of control of the license held by ENIP2 to Enexus, as described herein, will not affect the qualifications of ENIP2 as
The NRC staff concludes that the conversion of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear LLC would not constitute a direct transfer of the licenses to the extent held by ENO. Therefore, no consent to the proposed conversion is necessary.
The findings set forth above are supported by the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80,
1. ENIP2 shall enter into the $700 million Support Agreement with Enexus Energy Corporation as described in the application, no later than the time the proposed transactions and indirect license transfer occurs. ENIP2 shall take no action to cause Enexus Energy Corporation, or its successors and assigns, to void, cancel, or modify the Support Agreement or cause it to fail to perform, or impair its performance under the Support Agreement, without prior written consent of the NRC. The Support Agreement may not be amended or modified without 30 days prior written notice to the Director of the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs or his designee. An executed copy of the Support Agreement shall be submitted to the NRC no later than 30 days after the completion of the proposed transactions and the indirect license transfer. ENIP2 shall inform the NRC in writing anytime it draws upon the Support Agreement.
2. The ten separate support guarantees from various Entergy subsidiaries, which total $315 million, including the support guarantee relating to IP1, may be revoked when, and conditioned upon, implementation of the new $700 million Support Agreement at the time the proposed restructuring and indirect license transfer are completed.
3. Should the proposed corporate restructuring and establishment of Enexus not be completed within one year from the date of this Order, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by Order.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, and December 5, 2007, and January 24, March 17, April 22, and May 2, 2008, and the NRC's safety evaluation dated July 28, 2008, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice of New Blanket Routine Use.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is proposing in this notice the addition of a new blanket routine use. OSHRC's Privacy Act system-of-records notices are published in full at 72 FR 54301, 54301-03 (Sept. 24, 2007), and 71 FR 19556, 19556-67 (Apr. 14, 2006).
Comments must be received by OSHRC on or before September 15, 2008. The new blanket routine use will become effective on that date, without any further notice in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ron Bailey, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, via telephone at (202) 606-5410, or via e-mail at
The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), requires OSHRC to publish in the
On May 22, 2007, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued a memorandum for the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies entitled “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information.” OMB directed agencies to develop and publish a routine use for disclosure of information in connection with response and remedial efforts in the event of a data breach. Therefore, OSHRC is adding a new blanket routine use that, in the event of a data breach, authorizes OSHRC to disclose relevant information
OSHRC's proposed blanket routine use is published below. The first ten blanket routine uses, which remain in effect, were last published in full text on April 14, 2006 at 71 FR 19556, 19558-59.
(11) A record from an OSHRC system of records may be disclosed as a blanket routine use to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) OSHRC suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and
(b) OSHRC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by OSHRC or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with OSHRC's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
On July 15, 2008, the Commission issued an Emergency Order Pursuant to Section 12(k)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Taking Temporary Action to Respond to Market Developments (the “Order”).
Pursuant to its authority under Section 12(k)(2)(C) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), the Commission is extending the Emergency Order. Section 12(k)(2)(C) authorizes the Commission to extend an emergency order issued pursuant to Section 12(k)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act for a total effective period of up to 30 calendar days, if the Commission finds that the emergency still exists and determines that an extension is necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors to maintain fair and orderly securities markets.
The Commission has carefully reevaluated the current state of the markets in consultation with officials of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. We note that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in authorizing the creation of the temporary Primary Dealer Credit Facility (“PDCF”), was required to determine that “unusual and exigent circumstances” exist and that the PDCF remains available to the financial firms identified in Appendix A. The Commission continues to remain concerned about the ongoing threat of market disruption and effects on investor confidence, and has determined in this environment that the standards under Section 12(k)(2) for extending the Emergency Order have been met. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that extending the Emergency Order is in the public interest and necessary to maintain fair and orderly securities markets and for the protection of investors. Following expiration of the Emergency Order, the Commission will proceed immediately to consideration of rulemaking, which would become effective after notice and comment.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Global Diamond Exchange, Inc. (“Global Diamond”) because there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning its securities. Questions have arisen concerning the company's current business operations, control of the company, and the company's reliance on Rule 504 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 in conducting a distribution of its securities. Global Diamond, a company that has made no public filings with the Commission, is quoted on the Pink Sheets under the ticker symbol GBDX.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, July 31, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on August 13, 2008.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of roundtable discussion; request for comment.
On August 4, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a
The roundtable will be held in the auditorium of SEC headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC. The roundtable will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. The roundtable discussions also will be available via webcast on the SEC's Web site at
Comments should be received on or before August 11, 2008.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Florence Harmon, Acting Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. 4-564. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Liza McAndrew Moberg, Professional Accounting Fellow, at (202) 551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6561.
The Commission welcomes feedback regarding any of the topics to be addressed at the roundtable. The panel discussions will focus on:
• An update on IFRS developments
• Experience with the use of IFRS in practice, including during the recent period of market turmoil, more specifically:
• Applying IFRS in the preparation of financial statements
• Working with financial statements prepared pursuant to IFRS
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA proposes a rule change to repeal NASD Rule 1130 (Reliance on Current Membership List) and incorporated NYSE Rules 405A (Non-Managed Fee-Based Account Programs—Disclosure and Monitoring), 440F (Public Short Sale Transactions Effected on the Exchange), 440G (Transactions in Stocks and Warrants for the Accounts of Members, Allied Members and Member Organizations) and 477 (Retention of Jurisdiction—Failure to Cooperate) as part of the process of developing the consolidated FINRA rulebook. The text of the proposed rule change is available at FINRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
As part of the process of developing the new consolidated rulebook (“Consolidated FINRA Rulebook”),
The proposed rule change would repeal NASD Rule 1130, which provides that the Secretary of FINRA shall furnish every member a list of all members of FINRA, and shall currently keep every member advised, by amendments to the list or otherwise, of all new members and of all suspensions and cancellations of membership. The rule also requires that each member provide such information to its offices and associated persons as appropriate, and entitles members to rely on the information provided by FINRA for the purpose of complying with the rules.
FINRA is proposing to repeal NASD Rule 1130 because the requirement to furnish a membership list is substantially similar to provisions in Article IV, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws, which require the Secretary of FINRA to keep a currently accurate and complete membership roll, which shall at all times be available to all members, governmental authorities and the general public.
The proposed rule change would repeal Incorporated NYSE Rule 405A, which prescribes certain requirements in connection with placing a customer in a fee-based brokerage account. Among other things, the rule requires a member to provide the customer, in advance of opening such an account, a detailed disclosure document that must include, at a minimum: A description of the services provided, eligible assets, fees charged, an explanation of how costs will be computed and/or the provision of cost estimates based on hypothetical portfolios, any conditions or restrictions imposed and a summary of the program's advantages and disadvantages. The rule also requires that the member make a determination that the program is appropriate for the customer, as well as ongoing monitoring of transactional activity by customers and procedures to follow up with customers whose account activity may be inappropriate in the context of the fee-based program.
Incorporated NYSE Rule 405A essentially codifies, in a more prescriptive fashion, guidance regarding the applicability of NASD Rule 2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) to fee-based programs set forth in NASD
As a practical matter, these requirements may have little or no current applicability to brokerage accounts in light of a recent court holding that fee-based compensation constitutes “special compensation” that triggers the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
To the extent fee-based programs may continue to exist in some form in brokerage accounts, FINRA believes the
The proposed rule change would repeal Incorporated NYSE Rules 440F and 440G. Incorporated NYSE Rule 440F requires members to report on Form SS20 round-lot short sale transactions in stocks or warrants effected on the NYSE floor for public customers. Incorporated NYSE Rule 440G requires members to report on Form 121 round-lot purchases or sales of stocks or warrants effected on the NYSE floor for members, allied members or member organizations. FINRA is proposing to repeal these rules as they are specific to the NYSE marketplace and relate solely to exchange transactions.
Both FINRA's By-Laws and Incorporated NYSE Rule 477 provide for retained jurisdiction over former members and associated persons for initiating disciplinary actions. Under Article IV, Section 6 and Article V, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws, a former member or former associated person, respectively, remains subject to the filing of a FINRA complaint for two years after termination based on conduct that commenced prior to the termination. In the case of former associated persons, the FINRA By-Laws also provide that the two-year period recommences if an amendment to a notice of termination filed within the original two-year period discloses possible misconduct. Incorporated NYSE Rule 477 provides for retained jurisdiction over a member or a member's employee for an unspecified time if, prior to termination or within one year following termination, NYSE serves written notice on such member or person that it is making inquiry into matters that occurred prior to termination.
Under the proposed rule change, FINRA would continue to use the retention of jurisdiction provisions set forth in the FINRA By-Laws and would repeal the corresponding provisions in Incorporated NYSE Rule 477.
FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments 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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding non-customer options orders. The text of the proposed rule change is as follows, with deletions in [brackets] and additions in
(a)
Electronic Access Members shall not enter into the System, as principal or agent, Non-Customer market orders. Non-Customer limit orders that cross the market and that cannot be executed within two (2) minimum variations below the best bid or above the best offer cannot be executed on the Exchange. Such limit orders will be canceled by the System.]
(b) through (g) no change.
.01 through .02 no change.
(a) Options Classes to Which Appointed. Market makers may not
(b) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE proposes to amend its rules regarding non-customer options orders. ISE rules currently prohibit members from entering non-customer market orders and non-customer limit orders that cross the market and that cannot be executed within two minimum variations below the best bid or above the best offer. This limitation on non-customer trading was included in the ISE rules at the time ISE was launched. Specifically, in support of this limitation, in its Form 1 application seeking registration as a national securities exchange, ISE represented that, in an electronic market, non-customer market orders have the potential to create market volatility by trading at different price levels until their order is fully executed. ISE further noted that, without this limitation, non-customers would be able to use large-size orders to quickly take out ISE's entire order book without giving other market participants an opportunity to react.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify in Rule 805(a) that market makers may enter market orders and fill-or-kill orders in the options classes to which they are appointed. The limitation on the types of orders market makers can enter in their appointed classes is intended to prevent market makers from having both standing limit orders and quotes in the same options class, which is why the rule specifically allows immediate-or-cancel orders. Like immediate-or-cancel orders, fill-or-kill orders and market orders are either filled immediately or automatically cancelled.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to provide that the Exchange will require a U.S. company, upon receiving written notification that it has fallen below the Exchange's listing standards, to issue a press release within the same amount of time as allotted by the SEC for the company to disclose such an occurrence, but in no event later than four business days after receipt of such notification, and will require a non-U.S. company to issue a press release within 30 days of receiving written notification from the Exchange that it has fallen below the Exchange's listing standards. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual to provide that the Exchange will require a U.S. company, upon receipt of written notification that it has fallen below the Exchange's listing standards, issue a press release within the amount of time allotted by the SEC for companies to disclose such an occurrence. The Exchange will also require a non-U.S. company to issue a press release within 30 days of receiving written notification that it has fallen below the Exchange's listing standard.
Currently, Section 802.02 of the Manual requires a U.S. company to issue a press release within 45 days of receiving written notification from the Exchange that it has fallen below the Exchange's listing standards. However, SEC rules require the company to file a Form 8-K giving notice of that event within four business days of being notified by the Exchange.
Currently, Section 802.03 of the Manual requires a non-U.S. company to issue a press release within 90 days of receiving written notification from the Exchange that it has fallen below the Exchange's listing standards. While foreign private issuers are not subject to the Form 8-K requirement imposed on domestic issuers, the Exchange believes that 90 days is an excessive period to give companies to make such a material disclosure. Based on our experience with these companies, 30 days would be more than sufficient. As such, the Exchange proposes to shorten from 90 to 30 days the period within which foreign private issuers must issue a press release with regard to a notification by the Exchange of noncompliance. If the issuer does not issue a press release within that 30-day period, the Exchange will do so.
While Sections 802.02 and 802.03 establish maximum time periods for the issuance of press releases, the Exchange believes that companies should issue their press releases concerning any notice of noncompliance they receive from the Exchange as soon as possible after receipt of such notification and should not wait until close to the end of the permitted period before doing so.
The basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
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 Exchange 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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act
While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the changes to be in effect for transactions settling on or after July 31, 2008.
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 Exchange currently provides for an option transaction charge credit of $0.21 per contract for Exchange options specialist units that incur Phlx option transaction charges when a customer order is delivered electronically via Phlx XL or via FBMS and then is executed via Linkage as a P/A Order. In addition, the Exchange charges floor brokers an amount equal to the transaction fee(s) assessed on options specialist units by another exchange in connection with customer orders that are delivered to the limit order book via FBMS and executed via Linkage as P/A Orders. Options specialist units are then credited an amount equal to the transaction fee(s) assessed on them by another exchange in connection with executing customer orders that are delivered to the limit order book via FBMS and executed via Linkage as a P/A Order.
The purpose of extending the current pilot programs discussed above is to encourage the use of Linkage, remain competitive with other exchanges with respect to the assessment of Linkage-related fees and to help alleviate the potential economic burden of multiple transaction charges imposed on Exchange specialist units in connection with routing these types of Linkage orders. Additionally, the purpose of assessing a fee on floor brokers who send customer orders that are delivered to the limit order book via FBMS and executed via Linkage as P/A Orders is to more equitably assess the applicable transaction fee(s) on the member originally entering the order to be executed. Floor brokers may choose to route these orders through other systems and not place these orders on the limit order book.
The above-referenced pilot programs are currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees 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 necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-55. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before October 3, 2008.
Send all comments regarding whether these information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to Cynthia Pitts, Administrative Officer, Office of Disaster, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 6th floor, Wash., DC 20416.
Cynthia Pitts, Administrative Officer, Office of Disaster, 202-205-7570
The Small Business Administration is authorized to make loans to victims of declared disasters for the purpose of restoring their damaged property to, as near as possible, pre-disaster conditions. SBA's Office of Disaster Assistance provides customer service to individuals and businesses on the phone and via email through its Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center and in-person through its Field Operations Centers.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Georgia dated 07/28/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11340 C and for economic injury is 11341 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Georgia.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Illinois (FEMA—1771—DR), dated 06/24/2008.
07/22/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Illinois, dated 06/24/2008, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/01/2008 and continuing through 07/22/2008.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Illinois ( FEMA-1771-DR), dated 06/25/2008.
07/22/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of ILLINOIS, dated 06/25/2008 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/01/2008 and continuing through 07/22/2008.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of MISSOURI (FEMA-1773-DR), dated 06/25/2008.
07/25/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of MISSOURI, dated 06/25/2008, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Ohio dated 07/23/2008.
07/23/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11338 5 and for economic injury is 11339 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Ohio, Michigan.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 7.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated 06/14/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin, dated 06/14/2008 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/05/2008 and continuing through 07/25/2008.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA—1768—DR), dated 06/14/2008.
07/25/2008.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Wisconsin, dated 06/14/2008, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/05/2008 and continuing through 07/25/2008.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to Goodmail Systems, Inc., 2465 Latham Street, Mountain View, CA 94040.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., all Associates of Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Goodmail Systems, Inc., and therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate
Federal Aviation Administration.
Notice of Availability of Draft Alternatives Working Paper.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this notice to advise the public the Draft Alternatives Working Paper for the Draft EIS will be made available for public comment pursuant to section 304 of the
David B. Kessler, AICP, Project Manager, Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport EIS, AWP-610.1, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 310/725-3615. Comments on the draft Alternatives Working Paper should be submitted to the address above and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is based on the procedures described in FAA Order 1050.1E,
FAA and BLM are making the Draft Alternatives Working Paper available to the public and governmental agencies for review and comment. This working paper contains information that the FAA and BLM will include into the Alternatives Section of the Draft EIS. FAA and BLM have developed the Alternatives Working Paper based on information disclosed in the Purpose and Need Working Paper that was made available to the public on January 25, 2008 (73 FR 4666-4667). The following general candidate alternative topics are included in the Draft Alternatives Working Paper: No Action, Other Modes of Transportation, Air Traffic Demand Management Strategies, Use of Airfield and Airspace Technologies, Expansion of McCarran International Airport, Use of Other Existing Airports in the Region, and Develop a New Airport. Several of these candidate alternatives have multiple sub-candidates that are evaluated in the Draft Alternatives Working Paper.
Pursuant to U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2,
The Draft Alternatives Working Paper also identifies other candidate alternatives that may have encroachments into base floodplains. FAA and BLM will consider all comments received for the purpose of developing future documents supporting the Draft EIS. FAA and BLM will accept comments on the Draft Alternatives Working Paper until 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.
Copies of the Draft Alternatives Working Paper are available for public review at the following locations during normal business hours:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Office of the Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, National Headquarters, Office of Airports, Planning and Environmental Needs Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130.
The document is also available for public review at the following libraries and other locations and at the following Web site:
The Draft Alternatives Working Paper will be available for public comment for 30 days. Written comments on the Draft Alternatives Working Paper should be submitted to the address above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before August 25, 2008.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-0718 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Frances Shaver, (202) 267-9681, or Katrina Holiday, (202) 267-3603, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received; correction.
This notice corrects the docket number of a previously-published petition for exemption. It also extends the comment period for the petition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before August 25, 2008.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA2007-0323, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kenna Sinclair (425) 227-1556, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SE., Renton, WA 98055-4056, or Frances Shaver (202) 267-9681, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-204, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
On July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43484), the FAA published a petition for exemption from the Boeing Company (PE-2008-30). However, the FAA docket number listed for this petition was incorrect. This notice corrects the docket number. In addition, the FAA is extending the comment period for this petition until August 25, 2008 since the lack of a correct docket number may have prevented interested parties from being able to submit their comments.
1. In the issue of July 25, 2008, on page 43484, in the second column, in the
2. On page 43484, third column, under the heading “Petition for Exemption”, the Docket number should read FAA-2007-0232.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of seven newly-designated entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13464 of April 30, 2008, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC of seven entities identified in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13464, is effective July 29, 2008.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Treasury Annex), Washington, DC 20220, Tel.: 202/622-2490.
Information about these designations and additional information concerning OFAC is available from OFAC's Web site (
On April 30, 2008, the President signed Executive Order 13464 (the “Order”) pursuant to,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in, or hereafter come within, the United States, or within the possession or control of United States persons, of the persons listed in the Annex, as well as those persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to satisfy any of the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (b)(i)-(b)(iii) of Section 1. On July 29, 2008, the Director of OFAC exercised the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to designate, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 1, subparagraphs (b)(i)-(b)(iii) of the Order, the following seven entities, whose names have been added to the list of Specially Designated Nationals and whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13464:
1. CO-OPERATIVE EXPORT-IMPORT ENTERPRISE (a.k.a. CEIE), 259/263 Bogyoke Aung San Street, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
2. MYANMAR ECONOMIC CORPORATION (a.k.a. MEC), 74-76 Shwedagon Pagoda Road, Dagon Township, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
3. MYANMAR IMPERIAL JADE CO., LTD, 22 Sule Pagoda Road, Mayangone Township, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
4. MYANMAR RUBY ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. (a.k.a. MYANMAR RUBY ENTERPRISE), 24/26 Sule Pagoda Road, Kyauktada Township, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
5. MYAWADDY BANK LTD. (a.k.a. MYAWADDY BANK), 24/26 Sule Pagoda Road, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
6. MYAWADDY TRADING LTD. (a.k.a. MYAWADDY TRADING CO.), 189-191 Maha Bandoola Street, Botataung P.O, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
7. UNION OF MYANMAR ECONOMIC HOLDINGS LIMITED (a.k.a. MYANMAR ECONOMIC HOLDINGS LIMITED; a.k.a. UMEH; a.k.a. UNION OF MYANMAR ECONOMIC HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED), 189-191 Maha Bandoola Road, Botahtaung Township, Yangon, Burma [BURMA]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of three newly designated entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13464 of April 30, 2008, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC of three entities identified in this notice, pursuant to Executive Orders 13464, is effective July 29, 2008.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Treasury Annex), Washington, DC 20220, Tel.: 202/622-2490.
Information about these designations and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On April 30, 2008, the President signed Executive Order 13464 (the “Order”) pursuant to,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in, or hereafter come within, the United States, or within the possession or control of United States persons, of the persons listed in the Annex, as well as those persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to satisfy any of the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (b)(i)-(b)(iii) of Section 1. On July 29, 2008, the Director of OFAC exercised the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to designate, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 1, subparagraphs (b)(i)-(b)(iii) of the Order, the following three entities, whose names have been added to the list of Specially Designated Nationals and whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13464:
1. NO. 1 MINING ENTERPRISE, 90 Kanbe Road, Yankin, Rangoon (Yangon, Burma; (ENTITY) [BURMA].
2. NO. 2 MINING ENTERPRISE, 90 Kanbe Road, Yankin, Rangoon (Yangon, Burma; (ENTITY) [BURMA].
3. NO. 3 MINING ENTERPRISE, 90 Kanbe Road, Yankin, Rangoon (Yangon, Burma; (ENTITY) [BURMA].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2008-XX, Exempt Organizations Voluntary Compliance Program (EOVCP).
Written comments should be received on or before October 3, 2008 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Allan
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Proposed rule.
As part of its initiative to redesign Federal records management, NARA is revising and reorganizing the existing regulations on Federal records management to update records management strategies and techniques and to make the regulations easier to read, understand, and use. This proposed rule will affect Federal agencies.
Submit comments on or before October 3, 2008.
NARA invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Please include “Attn: 3095-AB16” and your name and mailing address in your comments. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Laura McCarthy at telephone number 301-837-3023 or Nancy Allard at telephone number 301-837-1477. They can also be reached at fax number 301-837-0319.
On July 31, 2003, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued our Strategic Directions for Federal Records Management. In that document we set out our goals, strategies, and tactics for redesigning Federal records management to serve agencies in the 21st century. This proposed rule reflects those strategic directions and the initiatives that NARA has undertaken in support of the redesigned Federal records management program. It does not reflect pending 2008 legislation relating to management of electronic messages that was introduced after this proposed rule was developed; NARA will further revise proposed Part 1236 in a separate rulemaking should that legislation go into effect.
On March 15, 2004, at 69 FR 12100, NARA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments about a proposal to rewrite and restructure the Federal records management regulations contained in 36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B. In response, we received remarks from one member of the public, seven Federal records management professionals, one records management contractor working for a Federal agency, one retired records management consultant, and one records management consultant.
Overall, the comments were in favor of our proposal. Many commented that it was time for an update and that the regulations needed to incorporate changes to address the evolution of technology. They also recommended that we use
In rewriting and restructuring the regulation, we incorporated plain language principles with the intent of making the regulations easier to read, understand, and use. We also organized the regulations according to the lifecycle concept of records, while acknowledging that the lifecycle is not linear. As recommended in the comments, the organization of the CFR parts in this proposed rule generally reflects the order outlined in the ANPRM. Our comprehensive review of the Subchapter identified opportunities to consolidate related requirements that had been added over the years to different sections within the parts.
The existing Subchapter B contains several Parts that are subdivided into multiple subparts, making it difficult to locate information quickly. The proposed rule instead has broken the material into smaller, more focused Parts. Each part begins with a statement of the statutory authorities and the ISO 15489-1:2001 clauses that pertain to the provisions.
This part sets out the statutory basis for Federal records management programs; the roles of NARA, other oversight agencies, and every Federal agency in carrying out records management; and general records management program requirements, which are specified in greater detail in subsequent parts. The material in proposed part 1220 is drawn from subparts A and B of the existing 36 CFR part 1220, plus existing §§ 1222.10 and 1222.20. Existing § 1220.18 is moved to proposed part 1239.
In proposed § 1220.18 we have added definitions for the following terms:
We have not revised the definition of
The existing 36 CFR part 1220, subpart B has been reorganized and rewritten in plain language. The proposed provisions are organized around identification of agency records management responsibilities, general records management principles that agency records management programs must implement, and high-level statement of the actions agencies must take to carry out their records management responsibilities. Concepts in existing §§ 1222.10 and 1222.20 have been incorporated in the revised subpart B.
This part distinguishes between records, personal files, and nonrecord materials; and prescribes recordkeeping requirements for agencies, Federal employees, and Federal contractors. The material in proposed part 1222 is drawn from subparts A and C of existing 36
• In the new § 1222.18, we are revising the conditions under which nonrecord materials may be removed by departing employees from Government agency custody. Currently, the regulations permit nonrecord materials containing national security classified information or information restricted from release under the Privacy Act or other statutes to be removed from an agency if the information is appropriately protected. After consulting the Information Security Oversight Office, we have revised the provision relating to national security classified information to limit removal to instances governed by the National Industrial Security Program. We also propose to prohibit without exception removal of Privacy Act and other statutorily restricted nonrecord materials from Government custody. This section does not apply to use of records and nonrecord materials in the course of conducting official agency business, including telework and authorized dissemination of information.
• In the new § 1222.32, we have added clarification concerning creation and maintenance of records when a contractor operates a program for an agency and reference to the National Industrial Security Program requirements for national security classified information.
This part establishes the necessary actions that each agency must take to ensure proper and adequate documentation for continuing agency operations in the event of an emergency or disaster. The material in proposed part 1223 is drawn from existing 36 CFR part 1236. There are no significant changes from the existing regulations other than updating references to the authorities.
This part specifies the elements of a records disposition program, the details of which are covered in proposed parts 1225 through 1235. The requirements in existing 36 CFR 1228.12, Basic elements of disposition programs, are covered now in § 1220.34.
This part outlines the process for developing records schedules and obtaining records disposition authorities. The material in proposed part 1225 replaces subpart B of existing 36 CFR part 1228.
This part instructs agencies on how to apply disposition instructions, dispose of records, and train agency personnel in these procedures. The material in proposed part 1226 is drawn from subpart D of existing 36 CFR part 1228. We have removed the requirement to submit 20 copies of printed schedules and now require only that an electronic copy be sent via e-mail. As authorized by a 2004 change to 44 U.S.C. 2909, the proposed § 1226.20 will allow agencies to temporarily retain records beyond their approved retention period when special circumstances alter the normal administrative, legal or fiscal value of the records. The existing regulation requires agencies to obtain NARA approval if the records must be kept for more than one year beyond the date they are eligible for disposal.
This part explains General Records Schedules (GRS) and when the GRS must be used by agencies. The material in proposed part 1227 is drawn from subpart C of existing 36 CFR part 1228. The only significant change from the existing regulation is that the list of current GRS is no longer provided in the part. Instead, agencies are directed to NARA's Web site to obtain copies of the most current schedules.
This part prescribes the procedures for agencies to loan permanent and unscheduled records to other Federal agencies and non-Federal entities. The material in proposed part 1228 is drawn from subpart E of existing 36 CFR part 1228. Because the loan of permanent and unscheduled records increases the likelihood of the records becoming lost, misplaced, or incorporated into other files, we have added a requirement that agencies obtain prior NARA approval to loan original permanent or unscheduled records to other Federal agencies. We believe that there are few, if any, instances where agencies currently loan original records to another agency. Since agencies do not need to request NARA approval to provide copies of records to other agencies and entities, this provision should not place a burden on agencies.
This part outlines the steps agencies must take when they discover records that are a continuing menace to human health or life or to property. The material in proposed part 1229 is drawn from subpart F of existing 36 CFR part 1228. The only significant change is to require agencies to notify NARA in all cases where records constituting a continuing menace to human health or life or to property are identified; the existing § 1228.92 permits agencies to deal with deteriorating nitrocellulose base film unilaterally, notifying NARA within 30 days after their action.
This part sets out the penalties and reporting requirements when records are destroyed, damaged, or removed without authorization. The material in proposed part 1230 is drawn from existing 36 CFR part 1228, subpart G. The title of the part now reflects the wording used in 44 U.S.C. 3106. We have also updated the provision relating to criminal penalties to reflect amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2071. We have added a new § 1230.16 to address how NARA and agencies handle credible allegations of unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records.
This part provides procedures for the transfer of records between executive agencies. The material in proposed part 1231 is drawn from 36 CFR part 1228, subpart H. The only significant change from the existing regulation is the removal of sections concerning transfer of equipment and the cost of transfers.
This part provides procedures for the transfer of records to a NARA, agency-operated, or commercial records storage facility. There are no substantive changes from the existing subpart I of 36 CFR part 1228.
This part provides procedures that apply to the use of NARA's Federal Records Center Program. There are no substantive changes from the existing subpart J of 36 CFR part 1228.
At the final rule stage, we intend to re-designate the regulations currently in 36 CFR part 1228, subpart K, as new part 1234 without change. Comments are not being considered on the current subpart K or the move to a new part 1234.
The material in proposed part 1235 is drawn from 36 CFR part 1228, subpart L. The significant changes are elimination of descriptive information on the archival depositories in which transferred records will be stored and specification of timeframes for NARA approval or disapproval of agency requests to retain records beyond their expected transfer date.
This part reflects an update and reorganization of policies and procedures relating to electronic records management, currently contained in 36 CFR part 1234. This proposed part 1236 reminds agencies that all records management program requirements in parts 1220 through 1235 apply to electronic records, and then focuses on additional requirements that apply to electronic records. The revision of this part was also informed by the responses NARA received to an ANPRM published on October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51740) addressing a petition for rulemaking. The petition had requested that the Archivist amend NARA rules concerning the management, scheduling and preservation of text documents created in electronic form.
The proposed part 1236 contains, in restated language, most of the provisions of the existing part 1234. We have broadened the coverage of text documents to include all unstructured records. We have eliminated the existing § 1234.26, Judicial use of electronic records, because those principles are now widely accepted by courts. As noted previously, this proposed part does not reflect pending legislation relating to requirements that electronic records be captured and preserved in electronic recordkeeping systems only.
This proposed part expands and updates the audiovisual records management provisions in the existing 36 CFR part 1232 to address aerial photographic records, architectural engineering records, cartographic records, and digital photographs. As with the proposed CFR parts for electronic and micrographic records, this proposed part 1237 reminds agencies that all records management program requirements in parts 1220 through 1235 apply to audiovisual, cartographic and related records, and then focuses on additional requirements that apply specifically to records in these formats and media.
The material in proposed part 1238 is drawn from existing 36 CFR part 1230. The only substantive change is the deletion of the current § 1230.50 concerning non-regulatory information on centralized micrographic services from NARA.
The material in proposed part 1239 relating to program assistance NARA provides to agencies is drawn from existing 36 CFR part 1238; there are no substantive changes. The material relating to inspections of records management programs has been changed significantly from the current regulations on evaluations contained in subpart C of existing 36 CFR part 1220. As NARA announced in its 2003 Strategic Directions for Federal Records Management, NARA will undertake inspections when an agency, or a series of agencies in a specific line of business, fails to address high-level records management risks or specific problems identified through NARA's risk-based resource allocation model or other means such as Government reports or the media. The time frames for the inspection steps have been shortened, reflecting the more focused nature of inspections.
Parts 1240 through 1249 are reserved.
This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed rule incorporates changes made during the OMB and interagency review under E.O. 12866. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because this regulation will affect Federal agencies. This regulation does not have any federalism implications.
Archives and records.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA proposes to revise Subchapter B of chapter XII, title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:
44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33.
Subchapter B prescribes policies for Federal agencies' records management programs relating to proper records creation and maintenance, adequate documentation, and records disposition.
The regulations in this subchapter implement the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33.
These regulations are in conformance with ISO 15489-1:2001, Information and documentation—Records management. Other standards relating to specific sections of the regulations are cited where appropriate.
(a) The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is responsible for overseeing agencies' adequacy of documentation and records disposition programs and practices, and the General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for overseeing economy and efficiency in records management. The Archivist of the United States and the Administrator of GSA issue regulations and provide guidance and assistance to Federal agencies on records management programs. NARA regulations are in this subchapter. GSA regulations are in 41 CFR part 102-193.
(b) Federal agencies are responsible for establishing and maintaining a records management program that complies with NARA and GSA regulations and guidance. Subpart B of this part sets forth basic agency records management requirements.
(a) The Archivist of the United States issues regulations and provides guidance and assistance to Federal agencies on ensuring adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the Federal Government and ensuring proper records disposition, including standards for improving the management of records.
(b) NARA establishes standards for the retention of records having continuing value (permanent records), and assists Federal agencies in applying the standards to records in their custody.
(c) Through a records scheduling and appraisal process, the Archivist of the United States determines which Federal records may be destroyed and which records must be preserved and transferred to the National Archives of the United States. The Archivist's determination constitutes mandatory authority for the final disposition of all Federal records.
(d) The Archivist of the United States issues General Records Schedules (GRS) authorizing disposition, after specified periods of time, of records common to several or all Federal agencies.
The regulations in Subchapter B apply to Federal agencies as defined in § 1220.18.
The requirements in Subchapter B apply to recorded information and documentary materials that meet the definition of Federal records. See also part 1222.
As used in subchapter B—
(a) A Standard Form 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority that has been approved by NARA to authorize the disposition of Federal records;
(b) A General Records Schedule (GRS) issued by NARA; or
(c) A published agency manual or directive containing the records descriptions and disposition instructions approved by NARA on one or more SFs 115 or issued by NARA in the GRS. See also
(a) Records designated as disposable in an agency records disposition schedule approved by NARA (Standard Form 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority); or
(b) Records designated as disposable in a General Records Schedule.
(a) Under 44 U.S.C. 3101, the head of each Federal agency must make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency. These records must be designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
(b) Under 44 U.S.C. 3102, the head of each Federal agency must establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the economical and efficient management of the records of the agency.
(c) Agency records management programs must provide for:
(1) Effective controls over the creation, maintenance, and use of records in the conduct of current business; and
(2) Cooperation with the Archivist and the Administrator of GSA in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and destruction of records of temporary value.
Agencies must create and maintain authentic, reliable, and useable records and ensure that they remain so for the length of their authorized retention period. A comprehensive records management program provides policies and procedures for ensuring that:
(a) Records documenting agency business are created or captured, and the form or format of each record is specified;
(b) Records are organized and maintained to facilitate their use and usefulness throughout their authorized retention periods;
(c) Records are available when needed, where needed, and in a useable format to conduct agency business;
(d) Legal and regulatory requirements, relevant standards, and agency policies are followed;
(e) Records, regardless of format, are protected in a safe and secure environment and removal or destruction is carried out only as authorized in records schedules; and
(f) Continuity of operations is supported by a vital records program (see part 1223 of Subchapter B).
To carry out the responsibilities specified in 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 3102, agencies must:
(a) Assign records management responsibility to a person and office with appropriate authority within the agency to coordinate and oversee implementation of the agency comprehensive records management program principles in § 1220.32;
(b) Advise NARA and agency managers of the name(s) of the individual(s) assigned operational responsibility for the agency records management program. To notify NARA, send the name, e-mail and postal addresses, telephone and fax numbers of the individual to NARA (NWM), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001 or to
(c) Issue a directive(s) establishing program objectives, responsibilities, and authorities for the creation, maintenance, and disposition of agency records. Copies of the directive(s) (including subsequent amendments or supplements) must be disseminated throughout the agency, as appropriate, and a copy must be sent to NARA (NWM);
(d) Assign records management responsibilities in each program (mission) and administrative area to ensure incorporation of recordkeeping requirements and records maintenance, storage, and disposition practices into agency programs, processes, systems, and procedures;
(e) Integrate records management and archival requirements into the design, development, and implementation of electronic information systems as specified in § 1236.12;
(f) Provide guidance and training to all agency personnel on their records management responsibilities, including identification of Federal records, in all formats and media;
(g) Develop records schedules for all records created and received by the agency and obtain NARA approval of the schedules prior to implementation, in accordance with 36 CFR parts 1225 and 1226;
(h) Comply with applicable policies, procedures, and standards relating to records management and recordkeeping requirements issued by the Office of Management and Budget, NARA, GSA, or other agencies, as appropriate (see § 1222.22);
(i) Institute controls ensuring that all records, regardless of format or medium, are properly organized, classified or indexed, and described, and made available for use by all appropriate agency staff; and
(j) Conduct formal evaluations to measure the effectiveness of records management programs and practices, and compliance with NARA regulations in this subchapter.
44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, and 3301.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, and 3301.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1222.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), 7.2 (Characteristics of a record), 8.3.5 (Conversion and migration), 8.3.6 (Access, retrieval and use), and 9.6 (Storage and handling) apply to records creation and maintenance.
(a) The statutory definition of Federal records is contained in 44 U.S.C. 3301 and provided in § 1220.18 of this chapter.
(b) Several key terms, phrases, and concepts in the statutory definition of a Federal record are further explained as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) They were circulated or made available to employees, other than the creator, for official purposes such as approval, comment, action, recommendation, follow-up, or to communicate with agency staff about agency business; or
(2) They contain unique information, such as substantive annotations or comments that adds to a proper understanding of the agency's formulation and execution of basic policies, decisions, actions, or responsibilities.
(d)
Nonrecord materials are U.S. Government-owned documentary materials that do not meet the conditions of records status (see § 1222.12(b)) or that are specifically excluded from the statutory definition of records (see 44 U.S.C. 3301). An agency's records management program also needs to include managing nonrecord materials because their volume may exceed that of records. There are three specific categories of materials excluded from the statutory definition of records:
(a) Library and museum material (but only if such material is made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes), including physical exhibits, artifacts, and other material objects lacking evidential value.
(b) Extra copies of documents (but only if the sole reason such copies are preserved is for convenience of reference) including:
(1) Information copies of correspondence, directives, forms, and other documents on which no action is recorded or taken.
(2) Tickler, follow up, or suspense copies of correspondence, provided they are not the original documents.
(3) Duplicate copies of documents filed together in the same file.
(4) Extra copies of printed or processed materials for which complete record sets exist, such as current and superseded manuals maintained outside the office responsible for maintaining the record set.
(c) Stocks of publications and of processed documents. Catalogs, trade journals, and other publications that are received from other Government agencies, commercial firms, or private institutions and that require no action and are not part of a case on which action is taken. (Stocks do not include serial or record sets of agency publications and processed documents, as evidence of agency activities and for the information they contain, including annual reports, brochures, pamphlets, books, handbooks, posters and maps.)
(a) Agencies must develop recordkeeping requirements to distinguish records from nonrecord materials.
(b) The following guidelines should be used in managing nonrecord materials:
(1) If a clear determination cannot be made, the materials should be treated as records. Agencies may consult with NARA for guidance.
(2) Nonrecord materials must be physically segregated from records or, for electronic non-record materials maintained in an electronic repository, readily identified and segregable from records;
(3) Nonrecord materials should be purged when no longer needed for reference. NARA's approval is not required to destroy such materials.
(a) Nonrecord materials, including extra copies of unclassified or formally declassified agency records kept only for convenience of reference, may be removed by departing employees from Government agency custody only with the approval of the head of the agency or the individual(s) authorized to act for the agency on records issues.
(b) National security classified information may not be removed from Government custody, except for a removal of custody taken in accordance with the requirements of the National Industrial Security Program established under Executive Order 12829, as amended, or a successor Order.
(c) Information that is restricted from release under the Privacy Act or other
(d) This section does not apply to use of records and nonrecord materials in the course of conducting official agency business, including telework and authorized dissemination of information.
(a) Personal files are defined in § 1220.18. The NARA publications
(b) Personal files must be clearly designated as such and must be maintained separately from the office's official records.
(1) Information about private (non-agency) matters and agency business must not be mixed in outgoing agency documents, such as correspondence and messages.
(2) If information about private matters and agency business appears in a received document, the document is a Federal record. Agencies may make a copy of the document with the personal information deleted or redacted, and treat the copy as the Federal record.
(3) Materials labeled “personal,” “confidential,” or “private,” or similarly designated, and used in the transaction of public business, are Federal records. The use of a label such as “personal” does not affect the status of documentary materials in a Federal agency.
To meet their obligation for adequate and proper documentation agencies must prescribe the creation and maintenance of records that:
(a) Document the persons, places, things, or matters dealt with by the agency.
(b) Facilitate action by agency officials and their successors in office.
(c) Make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress or other duly authorized agencies of the Government.
(d) Protect the financial, legal, and other rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the Government's actions.
(e) Document the formulation and execution of basic policies and decisions and the taking of necessary actions, including all substantive decisions and commitments reached orally (person-to-person, by telecommunications, or in conference) or electronically.
(f) Document important board, committee, or staff meetings.
(a) Agencies must ensure that procedures, directives and other issuances; systems planning and development documentation; and other relevant records include recordkeeping requirements for records in all media, including those records created or received on electronic mail systems. Recordkeeping requirements must:
(1) Identify and prescribe specific categories of records to be systematically created or received and maintained by agency personnel in the course of their official duties;
(2) Specify the use of materials and recording techniques that ensure the preservation of records as long as they are needed by the Government;
(3) Prescribe the manner in which these materials must be maintained wherever held;
(4) Propose how long records must be maintained for agency business per the scheduling process in Part 1225;
(5) Distinguish records from nonrecord materials and comply with the provisions in Subchapter B concerning records scheduling and disposition;
(6) Include procedures to ensure that departing officials and employees do not remove Federal records from agency custody and remove nonrecord materials only in accordance with § 1222.18;
(7) Define the special recordkeeping responsibilities of program managers, information technology staff, systems administrators, and the general recordkeeping responsibilities of all agency employees.
(b) Agencies must provide the training described in § 1220.34(f) and inform all employees that they are responsible and accountable for keeping accurate and complete records of their activities.
To ensure the adequate and proper documentation of agency programs, each program must develop recordkeeping requirements that identify:
(a) The record series and systems that must be created and maintained to document program policies, procedures, functions, activities, and transactions;
(b) The office responsible for maintaining the record copies of those series and systems, and applicable system administrator responsible for ensuring authenticity, protection, and ready retrieval of electronic records;
(c) Related records series and systems;
(d) The relationship between paper and electronic files in the same series; and
(e) Policies, procedures, and strategies for ensuring that records are retained long enough to meet programmatic, administrative, fiscal, legal, and historical needs as authorized in a NARA-approved disposition schedule.
To ensure that record series and systems adequately document agency policies, transactions, and activities, each program must develop recordkeeping requirements for records series and systems that include:
(a) Identification of information and documentation that must be included in the series and/or system;
(b) Arrangement of each series and the records within the series and/or system;
(c) Identification of the location of the records and the staff responsible for maintaining the records;
(d) Policies and procedures for maintaining the documentation of telephone calls, meetings, instant messages, and electronic mail exchanges that include substantive information about agency policies and activities;
(e) Policies and procedures for identifying working files and for determining the record status of working files in paper and electronic form; and
(f) Policies and procedures for maintaining series consisting of different media.
Agencies must comply with recordkeeping requirements that are imposed government-wide by another agency with jurisdiction over the program or activity being conducted,
(a) Agency officials responsible for administering contracts must safeguard records created, processed, or in the possession of a contractor or a non-Federal entity by taking the following steps:
(1) Agencies must ensure that contractors performing Federal government agency functions create and maintain records that document these activities. Agencies must specify in the contract government ownership and the delivery to the Government of all records necessary for the adequate and proper documentation of contractor-operated agency activities and programs in accordance with requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and, where applicable, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).
(2) Records management oversight of contract records is necessary to ensure that all recordkeeping needs are met. All records created for Government use and delivered to, or under the legal control of, the Government must be managed in accordance with Federal law. In addition, electronic records and background electronic data specified for delivery to the contracting agency must be accompanied by sufficient technical documentation to permit use of the records and data.
(3) Contracts that require the creation of data for the Government's use must specify, in addition to the final product, delivery of background supporting data or other records that may have reuse value to the Government. To determine what background supporting data or other records that contractors must deliver, program and contracting officials must consult with agency records and information managers and historians and, when appropriate, with other Government agencies to ensure that all Government needs are met, especially when the data deliverables support a new agency mission or a new Government program.
(4) Deferred ordering and delivery-of-data clauses and rights-in-data clauses must be included in contracts whenever necessary to ensure adequate and proper documentation or because the data have reuse value to the Government.
(b) All data created for Government use and delivered to, or falling under the legal control of, the Government are Federal records subject to the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33, the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), and must be managed and scheduled for disposition only as provided in Subchapter B.
(c) Agencies must ensure that appropriate authority for retention of classified materials has been granted to contractors or non-government entities participating in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP), in accordance with 32 CFR part 2004.
Agencies must implement a records maintenance program so that complete records are filed or otherwise identified and preserved, records can be readily found when needed, and permanent and temporary records are physically segregated from each other or, for electronic records, segregable. Agency records maintenance programs must:
(a) Institute procedures for organizing and storing records;
(b) Maintain electronic, audiovisual and cartographic, and microform records in accordance with 36 CFR parts 1236, 1237, and 1238, respectively;
(c) Assign responsibilities for maintenance of records in all formats within each agency component, including designation of the officials that are responsible for maintenance and disposition of electronic records and management of automated systems used for recordkeeping;
(d) Institute reference and retrieval procedures and controls that:
(1) Facilitate the finding, charging out, and refiling of records, including safeguards against loss during transit; and
(2) Ensure that access to electronic records minimizes the risk of unauthorized additions, deletions, or alterations;
(e) Issue appropriate instructions to all agency employees on handling and protecting records;
(f) Maintain records and nonrecord materials separately;
(g) Maintain personal files separately from records in accordance with § 1222.20; and
(h) Comply with 36 CFR parts 1232 and 1234 when storing records in a records facility.
44 U.S.C. 3101; E.O. 12656, 53 FR 47491; E.O. 13231, 66 FR 53063.
(a) The authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 3101; Executive Orders 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, and 13231, Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age; National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51)/ Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-20) or applicable successor directives. These authorities require the head of each agency to make and preserve records that contain adequate and proper documentation of the organization and to perform national security emergency preparedness functions.
(b) These regulations are in conformance with guidance provided in Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Preparedness Circular (FPC) 65, Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP).
(a) See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout subchapter B, including part 1223.
(b) As used in part 1223—
These regulations conform with guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes) and 9.6 (Storage and handling) apply to vital records.
Part 1223 prescribes policies and procedures needed to establish a program to identify protect, and manage vital records as part of an agency's continuity of operation plan designed to meet emergency management responsibilities.
(a) It provides an agency with the information it needs to conduct its business under other than normal operating conditions and to resume normal business afterward; and
(b) It enables agency officials to identify and protect the most important records dealing with the legal and financial rights of the agency and of persons directly affected by the agency's actions.
To achieve compliance with this section, an agency's vital records program must contain all elements listed in Annex G of FPC 65. In carrying out a vital records program, agencies must:
(a) Specify agency staff responsibilities;
(b) Appropriately inform all staff about vital records;
(c) Ensure that the designation of vital records is current and complete; and
(d) Ensure that vital records are adequately protected, accessible, and immediately usable.
Agencies identify vital records in the context of the emergency management function. Vital records are those that are needed to perform the most critical functions of the agency and those needed to protect legal and financial rights of the Government and of the persons affected by its actions. Vital records also include emergency plans and related records that specify how an agency will respond to an emergency. The informational content of record series and electronic records systems determines which are vital records. Only the most recent and complete sources of the information are vital records.
(a) Vital records can be original records or copies of records. Consult NARA records management guidance on vital records at
(b) Records may be maintained on a variety of media including paper, magnetic tape, optical disk, photographic film, and microform. In selecting the media, agencies must ensure that equipment needed to read the specific media will be available following an emergency or disaster.
Agencies must establish retrieval procedures for vital records that are easily implemented, especially since individuals unfamiliar with the records may need to use them in an emergency. For electronic records systems, agencies must also ensure that appropriate hardware, software, and system documentation adequate to operate the system and access the records will be available in case of an emergency.
Agencies must take appropriate measures to ensure the survival of the vital records or copies of vital records in case of an emergency.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The off-site copy of legal and financial rights vital records may be stored at an off-site agency location or, in accordance with § 1233.12 of this chapter, at a records storage facility.
(2) When using a NARA records storage facility for storing vital records that are duplicate copies of original records, the agency must specify on the Standard Form 135, Records Transmittal and Receipt, that they are vital records (duplicate copies) and the medium on which they are maintained. The agency must also periodically cycle (update) them by removing obsolete items and replacing them with the most recent version.
The disposition of vital records that are original records is governed by records schedules approved by NARA (see part 1225, Scheduling Records). Agencies must not destroy original records that are not scheduled. Duplicate copies created and maintained for vital records purposes only may be destroyed when superseded or obsolete during the routine vital records cycle process.
44 U.S.C. 2111, 2904, 3102, and 3301.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2111, 2904, 3102, and 3301.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1224.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), 8.3.7 (Retention and disposition), 8.5 (Discontinuing records systems), and 9.9 (Implementing disposition) apply to records disposition.
In order to properly implement the provisions of §§ 1220.30(c)(2), 1220.32(e), and 1220.34(c), (f), and (g) agencies must:
(a) Ensure that all records are scheduled in accordance with part 1225, schedules are implemented in accordance with part 1226, and permanent records are transferred to the National Archives of the United States.
(b) Promptly disseminate and implement NARA-approved agency schedules and additions and changes to the General Records Schedules (GRS).
(c) Regularly review agency-generated schedules, and, if necessary, update them.
(d) Incorporate records retention and disposition functionality during the design, development, and implementation of new or revised records systems (whether paper or electronic). See § 1236.6.
(e) Provide training and guidance to all employees on agency records disposition requirements and procedures and other significant aspects of the records disposition program. When a new or revised records schedule is issued, provide specific guidance to employees responsible for applying the schedule.
44 U.S.C. 2111, 2904, 2905, 3102, and Chapter 33.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2111, 2904, 2905, 3102, and Chapter 33.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout Subchapter B, including part 1225.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 4 (Benefits of records management), 6.3 (Responsibilities), 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), 8.3.7 (Retention and disposition), 9.2 (Determining how long to retain records), and 9.10 (Documenting records management processes) apply to records scheduling.
All Federal records, including those created or maintained for the Government by a contractor, must be covered by a NARA-approved agency disposition authority, Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority, or the NARA General Records Schedules. See §§ 1230.10 and 1234.32 of Subchapter B, for requirements specific to microform and electronic records, respectively.
The principal steps in developing agency records schedules are listed below. Details are given in the NARA
(a) Conduct a functional or work process analysis to identify the functions or activities performed by each organization or unit. Identify the recordkeeping requirements for each.
(b) Prepare an inventory for each function or activity to identify records series, systems, and nonrecord materials.
(c) Determine the appropriate scope of the records schedule items, e.g., individual series/system component, work process, group of related work processes, or broad program area.
(d) Evaluate the period of time the agency needs each records series or system based on use, value to agency operations and oversight agencies, and legal obligations. Determine whether a fixed or flexible retention period is more appropriate. For records proposed as temporary, specify a retention period that meets agency business needs and legal requirements. For records proposed as permanent records, identify how long the records are needed by the agency before they are transferred to NARA.
(e) Determine whether the proposed disposition should be limited to records in a specific medium. Records schedules submitted to NARA for
(f) Compile a schedule for records, including descriptions and disposition instructions for each item, using the SF 115.
(g) Obtain internal clearances, as appropriate, from program offices and other stakeholders such as the legal counsel, chief information officer, electronic systems manager, and agency historian, as appropriate.
(h) Obtain approval from the General Accounting Office, when required under title 8 of the GAO Policy and Procedures Manual for the Guidance of Federal Agencies (see § 1225.20).
(i) Submit an SF 115 covering new or only revised record items to NARA for approval (see § 1225.18(d)).
(j) The disposition instructions on SFs 115 approved by the Archivist of the United States are mandatory (44 U.S.C. 3314).
(a)
(b)
(1) Descriptive title of the records series, component of an information system, or appropriate aggregation of series and/or information system components. The descriptive title must be meaningful to agency personnel;
(2) Complete description of the records including:
(i) Agency function;
(ii) Physical type;
(iii) Inclusive dates;
(iv) An arrangement statement;
(v) Statement of restrictions on access under the Freedom of Information Act if the records are proposed for immediate transfer;
(3) Disposition instructions developed using the following guidelines:
(i) If the records series or system is current and continuing, the SF 115 must specify the period of time after which the records will be transferred to the National Archives of the United States.
(ii) If the records series or system is nonrecurring, i.e., no additional records will be created or acquired, the agency must propose either that the records be transferred to the National Archives immediately or set transfer for a fixed date in the future.
(c)
(1) If NARA determines either that records are not permanent or that the transfer instructions are not appropriate, it will notify the agency and negotiate an appropriate disposition. The disposition instruction on the SF 115 will be modified prior to NARA approval.
(2) If NARA and the agency cannot agree on the disposition and/or retention period for an item(s), the items(s) will be withdrawn. In these cases, the agency must submit an SF 115 with a revised proposal for disposition; unscheduled records must be treated as permanent until a new schedule is approved.
(a)
(b)
(1) Descriptive title familiar to agency personnel;
(2) Description of the records including agency function, physical type(s) and informational content;
(3) Disposition instructions developed using the following guidelines:
(i) If the record series, component of an electronic information system, or appropriate aggregation of series and/or automated system components is current and continuing, the SF 115 must include file breaks, retention period or event after which the records will be destroyed, and, if appropriate, transfer period for retiring inactive records to an approved records storage facility.
(ii) If the records series, system, or other aggregation is nonrecurring, i.e., no additional records will be created or acquired, the SF 115 must specify either immediate destruction or destruction on a future date.
(c)
(1) If NARA determines that records proposed as temporary merit permanent retention and transfer to the National Archives, the agency must change the disposition instruction prior to approval of the SF 115.
(2) If NARA and the agency cannot agree on the retention period for an item(s), the items(s) will be withdrawn. In these cases, the agency will submit an SF 115 with a revised proposal for disposition within 6 months of the date of the approval of the original SF 115 or withdrawal of the SF 115 item.
(a) Federal agencies submit an SF 115 to NARA to request authority to schedule (establish the disposition for) permanent and temporary records, either on a recurring or one-time basis.
(b) SFs 115 include only records not covered by the General Records Schedules (GRS) (see part 1227), deviations from the GRS (see § 1227.10), or previously scheduled records requiring changes in retention periods or substantive changes in description.
(c) SFs 115 do not include nonrecord material. The disposition of nonrecord materials is determined by agencies and does not require NARA approval.
(d) The following elements are required on a SF 115:
(1) Title and description of the records covered by each item.
(2) Disposition instructions that can be readily applied. Records schedules must provide for:
(i) The destruction of records that no longer have sufficient value to justify further retention (see § 1224.10(b)); and
(ii) The identification of potentially permanent records and provisions for their transfer to the legal custody of NARA.
(3) Certification that the records proposed for disposition are not now needed for the business of the agency or will not be needed after the specified retention periods. The signature of the authorized agency representative on the SF 115 provides certification.
(e) NARA will return SFs 115 that are improperly prepared. The agency must make the necessary corrections and resubmit the form to NARA.
(a) As specified in the GAO Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies, title 8—Records Management (44 U.S.C. 3309), Federal agencies must obtain the approval of the Comptroller General for the disposal of the following types of records:
(1) Program records less than 3 years old,
(2) Deviations from GRS 2-10, and
(3) Certain records relating to claims and demands by or against the Government, and to accounts in which the Government is concerned.
(b) This approval must be obtained before NARA will approve the disposition request.
Agencies must submit an SF 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority, to NARA in the following situations:
(a) If an interagency reorganization reassigns functions to an existing department or agency, the gaining organization must submit an SF 115 to NARA within one year of the reorganization. Schedules approved for one department or independent agency do not apply to records of other departments or agencies.
(b) If a new department or agency assumes functions from an existing one, the new agency must schedule records documenting the acquired functions and all other records not covered by the GRS within two years.
(c) If an agency needs to deviate from retention periods in the GRS.
(d) If an agency needs to change retention periods for records previously appraised as temporary by NARA.
(e) If an agency needs to change the approved disposition of records from permanent to temporary or vice versa.
(f) If an agency needs to modify the description of records because the informational content of the records and/or the function documented by the records changes.
(g) If an agency decides to change the scope of the records schedule items to include a greater or lesser aggregation of records (see § 1225.12(c)), unless § 1225.24 applies.
(h) Agencies must submit a new schedule to NARA for electronic versions of previously scheduled records if:
(1) The content and function of the records have changed significantly (e.g., the electronic records contain information that is substantially different from the information included in the hard copy series or are used for different purposes).
(2) The previously approved schedule explicitly excludes electronic records.
(3) The electronic records consist of program records maintained on an agency Web site.
(4) The electronic records consist of temporary program records maintained in a format other than scanned image AND the previously approved schedule is not media neutral.
If the conditions specified in § 1225.22(h) do not apply, the following conditions apply:
(a)
(i) Name of agency;
(ii) Name of the electronic system;
(iii) Organizational unit(s) or agency program that records support;
(iv) Current disposition authority reference; and
(v) Format of the records (e.g., database, scanned images, digital photographs, etc.).
(2) If the electronic records include information drawn from both temporary and permanent hard copy series, an agency either may apply a previously approved permanent disposition authority, after submitting the notification required by paragraph (a)(1) or may submit a new schedule if the agency believes the electronic records do not warrant permanent retention.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) For temporary program records covered by a NARA-approved media neutral schedule item (i.e., the item appears on a schedule submitted to NARA for approval before December 17, 2007, that is explicitly stated to be media neutral, or it appears on a schedule submitted to NARA for approval on or after December 17, 2007, that is not explicitly limited to a specific recordkeeping medium), apply the previously approved schedule.
Agencies must submit an SF 115 to permanently change the approved disposition of records. Disposition authorities are automatically superseded by approval of a later SF 115 for the same records unless the later SF 115 specifies an effective date. As provided in § 1226.20(c), agencies are authorized to retain records eligible for destruction until the new schedule is approved.
(a) SFs 115 that revise previously approved disposition authorities must cite the SF 115 and item numbers to be superseded, the current printed records disposition schedule and item numbers, if any, and/or the General Records Schedules and item numbers that cover the records.
(b) Agencies must submit with the SF 115 an explanation and justification for the change.
(c) For temporary retention of records beyond their normal retention period, see § 1226.18.
(d) Agencies must secure NARA approval of a change in the period of time that permanent records will remain in agency legal custody prior to transfer to the National Archives of the United States. To request approval, agencies send written requests to NARA (NWM). NARA approval is documented as an annotation to the schedule item.
44 U.S.C. 2111, 2904, 3102, and 3301.
The statutory authorities are 44 U.S.C. 2107, 2111, 2904, 3102, 3301 and 3302.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout subchapter B, including part 1226.
This part is in conformance with ISO 15489-1:2001, sections 8.3.7 (Retention and disposition), 8.5 (Discontinuing records systems), 9.2 (Determining how long to retain records), and 9.9 (Implementing disposition).
The application of approved schedules is mandatory except as provided in § 1226.16 and § 1226.18. Federal records must be retained as specified in the schedule to conduct Government business, protect rights, avoid waste, and preserve permanent records for transfer to NARA.
(a) Agencies must issue disposition authorities through their internal directives system within six months of approval of the SF 115 or GRS to ensure proper distribution and application of the schedule. The directive must cite the legal authority (GRS or SF 115 and item numbers) for each schedule item covering records.
(b) Agencies must send, via link or file, an electronic copy of each published agency schedule, directive, and other policy issuance relating to records disposition to NARA at
(c) The submission must include the name, title, agency, address, and telephone number of the submitter. If the comprehensive records schedule or other policy issuance is posted on a publicly available Web site, the agency must provide the full Internet address (URL).
Agencies must apply the approved records disposition schedules to their agency's records with the following limitations:
(a) Records described by items marked “disposition not approved” or “withdrawn” may not be destroyed until a specific disposition has been approved by NARA.
(b) Disposition authorities approved for one department or independent agency may not be applied to records of another department or agency. Departments or agencies that acquire records from another department or agency, and/or continue creating the same series of records previously created by another department or agency through interagency reorganization must submit an SF 115 to NARA for disposition authorization promptly. Until the new records schedule is approved, the records are unscheduled. See § 1225.22.
(c) Unless otherwise specified, newly approved disposition authorities apply retroactively to all existing records as described in the schedule.
(d) When required by court order (i.e., order for expungement or destruction), an agency may destroy temporary records before their NARA-authorized disposition date. In accordance with § 1230.14, an agency must notify NARA (NWM) when permanent or unscheduled records are to be destroyed in response to a court order. If the records have significant historical value, NARA will promptly advise the agency of any concerns over their destruction.
(a) When required to ensure the preservation of Government records, or when required by an emergency, or to maintain efficiency of Government operations, NARA will withdraw disposal authorizations in approved schedules (44 U.S.C. 2909). This withdrawal may apply to particular items on agency schedules or may apply to all existing authorizations for a specified type of record in any or all agencies.
(b) To both impose and rescind the withdrawal, NARA will notify the affected agency or agencies in writing, either by letter or NARA bulletin.
(a) Agencies may temporarily retain records approved for destruction beyond their NARA-approved retention period if special circumstances alter the normal administrative, legal, or fiscal value of the records.
(1) Agencies must not retain records whose disposal after a specified period is required by statute, unless retention is ordered by a court.
(2) In determining whether or not to temporarily extend the retention period of records, agencies must ensure that the extension of retention is consistent with the requirement contained in 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974, as amended) that records concerning individuals are maintained only if relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency that is required by law or executive order.
(b) If the records that are to be temporarily retained beyond their approved destruction date have been transferred to records storage facilities, agencies must notify the facility.
(c) Once the special circumstances that require extended retention of records have elapsed, agencies must destroy the records in accordance with the NARA-approved disposition instructions.
(d) Agencies must submit an SF 115 to NARA to change schedule provisions on a continuing basis in accordance with § 1225.26. Agencies may retain records eligible for destruction until the new schedule is approved.
(a) Agencies must secure NARA written approval to retain records series or systems that are eligible for destruction under NARA-approved schedules except when:
(1) The agency has requested a change in the records schedule in accordance with § 1225.26, in which case the agency is authorized to retain records eligible for destruction until the new SF 115 is approved;
(2) The records will be needed for less than one year; or
(3) A court order requires retention of the records. Agencies must inform NARA about such court orders in writing. The notification must include a copy of the order and the information specified in § 1226.20(b)(1) through (b)(4).
(b) To request an extension, agencies must send a letter to NARA (NWM). Along with a justification, the request must include:
(1) A concise description of the records series for which the extension is requested.
(2) A citation to the agency records schedule or the General Records Schedule currently governing disposition of the records;
(3) A statement of the estimated period of time that the records will be required; and
(4) For records in the agency's custody, a statement of the current and proposed physical location of the records.
(c) Agencies must ensure that records in records storage facilities are retained for the duration of the extension.
All records scheduled as permanent must be transferred to the National Archives of the United States after the period specified on the SF 115 in accordance with procedures specified under § 1235.12.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(a) Agencies must obtain written approval from NARA before donating records eligible for disposal to an appropriate person, organization, institution, corporation, or government (including a foreign government) that has requested them. Records that are not eligible for disposal cannot be donated.
(b) Agencies request the approval of such a donation by sending a letter to NARA (NWM), 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001. The request must include:
(1) The name of the department or agency, and subdivisions thereof, having custody of the records;
(2) The name and address of the proposed recipient of the records;
(3) A list containing:
(i) Description of the records to be transferred,
(ii) The inclusive dates of the records,
(iii) The SF 115 or GRS and item numbers that authorize destruction of the records;
(4) A statement providing evidence:
(i) That the proposed donation is in the best interests of the Government,
(ii) That the proposed recipient agrees not to sell the records as records or documents, and
(iii) That the donation will be made without cost to the U.S. Government;
(5) A certification that:
(i) The records contain no information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or contrary to the public interest, and/or
(ii) That records proposed for transfer to a person or commercial business are directly pertinent to the custody or operations of properties acquired from the Government, and/or
(iii) That a foreign government desiring the records has an official interest in them.
(c) NARA will determine whether the donation is in the public interest and notify the requesting agency of its decision in writing. If NARA determines such a proposed donation is contrary to the public interest, the agency must destroy the records in accordance with the appropriate disposal authority.
44 U.S.C. 3303a(d).
The statutory authority for this part is 44 U.S.C. 3303a(d).
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1227.
These regulations are in conformance with ISO 15489-1:2001, paragraphs 9.2 (Determining how long to retain records) and 9.9 (Implementing disposition).
General Records Schedules (GRS) are schedules issued by the Archivist of the United States that authorize, after specified periods of time, the destruction of temporary records or the transfer to NARA of permanent records that are common to several or all agencies.
(a) Agencies apply the disposition instructions of the GRS, as provided in the following table.
(b) Except as provided in the table in paragraph (a), agencies must incorporate in their disposition manual or otherwise disseminate new and revised GRS within 6 months after NARA has issued the GRS Transmittal.
(c) NARA may, at its discretion, apply the provisions of the GRS to records in its legal custody, subject to the provisions of § 1235.34.
(a) The GRS and instructions for their use are available online at
(b) NARA distributes new and revised GRS to Federal agencies under sequentially numbered GRS transmittals.
44 U.S.C. 2904.
The statutory authority for this part is 44 U.S.C. 2904.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in Part 1228.
Loans of permanent or unscheduled records between Federal agencies or to non-Federal recipients require prior written approval from NARA. The loan of permanent or unscheduled records increases the likelihood of the records becoming lost, misplaced, or incorporated into other files. Agencies should consider reproducing or scanning the records in response to a loan request.
(a) An agency proposing to loan permanent or unscheduled records must prepare a written loan agreement with the proposed recipient. The agreement must include:
(1) The name of the department or agency and subdivisions having custody of the records;
(2) The name and address of the proposed recipient of the records;
(3) A list containing:
(i) Identification of the records to be loaned, by series or system;
(ii) The inclusive dates for each series or system;
(iii) The volume and media of the records to be loaned; and
(iv) The NARA disposition job (SF 115) and item numbers covering the records, if any.
(4) A statement of the purpose and duration of the loan;
(5) A statement specifying any restrictions on the use of the records and how these restrictions will be imposed by the recipient;
(6) A certification that the records will be stored in areas with security and environmental controls equal to those specified in Part 1234; and
(7) A signature block for the Archivist of the United States. The loan must not take place until the Archivist has signed the agreement.
(b) The agency must send a written request to NARA (NWM) transmitting the proposed loan agreement, citing the rationale for not providing copies in place of the original records, and specifying the name, title, and telephone number of an agency contact. The request must be submitted or approved by the individual authorized to sign records schedules as described in § 1220.34(b).
(a) NARA will review the request and, if it is approved, return the signed agreement to the agency within 45 days.
(b) NARA will deny the request if the records are due or past due to be transferred to the National Archives of the United States in accordance with Part 1235, if the loan would endanger the records, or if the loan would otherwise violate the regulations in 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B. NARA will notify the agency in writing if it disapproves the loan and the reasons for the disapproval of the loan.
An agency must contact the recipient of loaned permanent or unscheduled records 30 days prior to the expiration of the loan period (as stated in the loan agreement) to arrange for the return of the records. If the agency extends the duration of the loan, it must notify NARA (see § 1228.12(b)) in writing, specifying the reason for the extension and providing the new expiration date of the loan.
44 U.S.C. 3310 and 3311.
This part describes certain conditions under which records may be destroyed without regard to the provisions of part 1226.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 3310 and 3311.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1229.
When the Archivist and the agency that has custody of them jointly determine that records in the custody of an agency of the U.S. Government are a continuing menace to human health or to property, the Archivist will authorize the agency to eliminate the menace immediately by any method necessary:
(a) When an agency identifies records that pose a continuing menace to human health or life, or to property, the records officer or other designee must immediately notify NARA (NWM). The notice must specify the description of the records, their location and quantity, and the nature of the menace. Notice may be given via e-mail to
(b) If NARA concurs in a determination that the records must be destroyed, the NARA will notify the agency to immediately destroy the records.
(c) If NARA does not concur that the menace must be eliminated by destruction of the records, NARA will advise the agency on remedial action to address the menace.
(a) Destruction of records outside the territorial limits of the continental United States is authorized whenever, during a state of war between the United States and any other nation or when hostile action by a foreign power appears imminent, the head of the agency that has custody of the records determines that their retention would be prejudicial to the interest of the United States, or that they occupy space urgently needed for military purposes and are without sufficient administrative, fiscal, legal, historical, or other value to warrant their continued preservation.
(b) Within six months after the destruction of any records under this authorization, the agency official who directed the destruction must submit to NARA (NWM) a written statement explaining the reasons for the destruction and a description of the records and how, when, and where the destruction was accomplished.
44 U.S.C. 3105 and 3106.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 3105 and 3106.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001, par. 6.3 (Responsibilities), 7.2 (Characteristics of a record), 8.2 (Records systems characteristics), and 8.3 (Designing and implementing records systems).
(a) See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout subchapter B, including part 1230.
(b) As used in part 1230—
The heads of Federal agencies must:
(a) Prevent the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records. Section 1222.24(a)(6) prohibits removing records from the legal custody of the agency. Records must not be destroyed except under the provisions of NARA-approved agency records schedules or the General Record Schedules issued by NARA;
(b) Take adequate measures to inform all employees and contractors of the provisions of the law relating to unauthorized destruction, removal, alteration or defacement of records;
(c) Implement and disseminate policies and procedures to ensure that records are protected against unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration and destruction; and
(d) Direct that any unauthorized removal, defacing, alteration or destruction be reported to NARA.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071).
The agency must report promptly any unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of that agency to NARA (NWM).
(a) The report must include:
(1) A complete description of the records with volume and dates if known;
(2) The office maintaining the records;
(3) A statement of the exact circumstances surrounding the removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records;
(4) A statement of the safeguards established to prevent further loss of documentation; and
(5) When appropriate, details of the actions taken to salvage, retrieve, or reconstruct the records.
(b) The report must be submitted or approved by the individual authorized to sign records schedules as described in § 1220.34(b).
Upon receiving any credible information that records are at risk of actual, impending, or threatened damage, alienation, or unauthorized destruction, NARA will contact the agency:
(a) If the threat has not yet resulted in damage, removal, or destruction, NARA will contact the agency by telephone promptly and follow up in writing within five business days.
(b) If records have allegedly been damaged, removed, or destroyed, NARA will notify the agency in writing promptly with a request for a response within 30 days.
NARA will assist the head of the agency in the recovery of any unlawfully removed records, including by contacting the Attorney General, if appropriate.
44 U.S.C. 2908.
The authority for this part is 44 U.S.C. 2908.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout Subchapter B, including this part.
The Archivist of the United States must approve in writing the transfer of records from the custody of one executive agency to another, except as provided in § 1231.18(a).
An executive agency that proposes to transfer records to another agency must request approval of the transfer of records in writing from NARA (NWM). The request must include:
(a) A concise description of the records to be transferred, including the volume in cubic feet;
(b) A statement of the restrictions imposed on the use of records;
(c) A statement of the agencies and persons using the records and the purpose of this use;
(d) A statement of the current and proposed physical and organizational locations of the records;
(e) A justification for the transfer including an explanation of why it is in the best interests of the Government; and
(f) Copies of the concurrence in the transfer by the heads of all agencies involved in the proposed transfer.
The records of executive agencies whose functions are terminated or are in process of liquidation may be transferred to another executive agency that inherits the function. All such transfers must be made in accordance with the provisions of this part 1231.
Restrictions imposed under a statute or Executive order must continue to be imposed after the transfer. Restrictions imposed by agency determination must also continue, unless the restrictions are removed by agreement between the agencies concerned.
Records are transferred between executive agencies without NARA approval when:
(a) Records are transferred to a NARA or agency-operated records centers or to the National Archives of the United States in accordance with parts 1232, 1233, and 1235;
(b) Temporary records are loaned for official use;
(c) The transfer of records or functions or both is required by statute, Executive Order, Presidential reorganization plan, or Treaty, or by specific determinations made thereunder;
(d) The records are transferred between two components of the same Executive department; or
(e) Records accessioned into the National Archives of the United States are later found to lack sufficient value for continued retention in the National Archives. The disposition of such records is governed by § 1235.34.
44 U.S.C. 2907 and 3103.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2907 and 3103.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout Subchapter B, including Part 1232.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001 Paragraphs 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), 8.3.3 (Physical storage medium and protection), 8.3.6 (Access, retrieval and use), 8.3.7 (Retention and disposition), 9.6 (Storage and handling), and 9.8.3 (Location and tracking) apply to records creation and maintenance.
Federal agencies may store records in the following types of records storage facilities, so long as the facilities meet the facility standards in 36 CFR part 1234. Records transferred to a records storage facility remain in the legal custody of the agency.
(a) NARA Federal Records Centers. NARA owns or operates records centers for the storage, processing, and servicing of records for Federal agencies under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2907. These NARA records centers include a National Personnel Records Center that contains designated records of the
(b) Records centers operated by or on behalf of one or more Federal agencies other than NARA.
(c) Commercial records storage facilities operated by private entities.
The following chart shows what records can be stored in a records storage facility and the conditions that apply:
An agency must meet the following requirements before it transfers records to a records storage facility:
(a) Ensure that the requirements of 36 CFR part 1234 of this part are met. Special attention must be paid to ensuring appropriate storage conditions for records on non-paper based media (e.g., film, audio tape, magnetic tape), especially those that are scheduled for long-term or permanent retention, as those records typically require more stringent environmental controls (see 36 CFR parts 1236 and 1237).
(b) To transfer unscheduled records, notify NARA (NWM) in writing prior to the transfer. The notification must identify the records storage facility and include a copy of the information required by § 1232.16(a).
(c) For all records being transferred, create documentation sufficient to identify and locate files. (See § 1232.16.)
(d) Ensure that NARA-approved retention periods are implemented properly and that records documenting final disposition actions (destruction or transfer to the National Archives of the United States) are created and maintained as required by 36 CFR 1226.22.
(a) Documentation must include for each individual records series spanning one or more consecutive years transferred to storage:
(i) Creating office;
(ii) Series title;
(iii) Description (in the case of permanent or unscheduled records, the description must include a folder title list of the box contents or equivalent detailed records description);
(iv) Date span;
(v) Physical form and medium of records (e.g., paper, motion picture film, sound recordings, photographs or digital images);
(vi) Volume;
(vii) Citation to NARA-approved schedule or agency records disposition manual (unscheduled records must cite the date the agency notified NARA or, if available, the date the SF 115 was submitted to NARA);
(viii) Restrictions on access if applicable;
(ix) Disposition (“permanent,” “temporary,” or “unscheduled; SF 115 pending”);
(x) Date of disposition action (transfer to the National Archives of the United States or destruction);
(xi) Physical location, including name and address of facility; and
(xii) Control number or identifier used to track records.
(b) In the case of permanent and unscheduled records, provide copies of such documentation to NARA and advise NARA in writing of the new location whenever the records are moved to a new storage facility. For permanent records, the agency must transmit this documentation to NARA (NWM) no later than 30 days after records are transferred to the agency records center or commercial records storage facility.
(1) Retain temporary records until the expiration of their NARA-approved retention period and no longer, except as provided for in § 1226.18.
(2) Transfer permanent records to the National Archives of the United States in accordance with 36 CFR part 1235.
Federal agencies must use the following procedures to transfer records to an agency records center or commercial records storage facility:
(a) Agreements with agency records centers or contracts with commercial records storage facilities must incorporate the standards in Part 1234 and allow for inspections by the agency and NARA to ensure compliance. An agency must remove records promptly from a facility if deficiencies identified during an inspection are not corrected within six months of issuance of the report.
(b) For temporary records, the agency must make available to NARA on request the documentation specified in § 1232.16.
(c) Retain temporary records until the expiration of their NARA-approved retention period and no longer, except as provided for in § 1226.18.
(d) Ensure that NARA-approved retention periods are implemented properly and that records documenting final disposition actions (destruction or transfer to the National Archives of the United States) are created and maintained as required by 36 CFR 1226.22.
(1) Agencies must establish procedures that ensure that temporary records are destroyed in accordance with NARA-approved schedules and that NARA-approved changes to schedules, including the General Records Schedules, are applied to records in agency records centers or commercial records storage facilities in a timely fashion. Procedures must include a requirement that the agency records center or commercial records
(2) Move temporary records that are subsequently reappraised as permanent to a facility that meets the environmental control requirements for permanent records in § 1234.3 within one year of their re-appraisal, if not already in such a facility. (Paper-based permanent records in an existing records storage facility that does not meet the environmental control requirements in § 1234.3(b) on October 1, 2009, must be moved from that facility no later than February 28, 2010.)
(3) Agencies must establish procedures to ensure that the agency records centers or commercial records storage facilities transfer permanent records to the National Archives of the United States as individual series spanning one or more years and in accordance with the provisions of Part 1235.
(e) Agencies must ensure that records that are restricted because they are security classified or exempt from disclosure by statute, including the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), or regulation are stored and maintained in accordance with applicable laws, executive orders, or regulations.
(f) Agencies must ensure that temporary records, including restricted records (security classified or exempted from disclosure by statute, including the Privacy Act, or regulation), are destroyed in accordance with the requirements specified in § 1226.24.
(g) Agencies must ensure that emergency operating vital records, as defined in 36 CFR part 1223, that are transferred to an agency records center or commercial records storage facility are available in accordance with 36 CFR 1223.24.
(h) Provide access to appropriate NARA staff to records wherever they are located in order to conduct an inspection in accordance with 36 CFR part 1239 or to process a request for records disposition authority.
44 U.S.C. 2907 and 3103.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2907 and 3103.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout Subchapter B, including Part 1233.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), 8.3.3 (Physical storage medium and protection), 8.3.6 (Access, retrieval and use), 8.3.7 (Retention and disposition), 9.6 (Storage and handling), and 9.8.3 (Location and tracking) apply to records creation and maintenance.
An agency transfers records to a NARA Federal Records Center using the following procedures:
(a) General. NARA will ensure that its records centers meet the facilities standards in part 1234 of this part, which meets the agency's obligation in § 1232.14(a).
(b) NARA Federal Records Centers may under some circumstances accept records that pose a threat to other records or to the health and safety of users including hazardous materials such as nitrate film, radioactive or chemically contaminated records, records exhibiting active mold growth, or untreated insect or rodent infiltrated records. Agencies may contact the NARA Federal Records Center for technical advice on treating such records.
(c) Agencies must use their designated NARA Federal Records Center(s) as specified in their agency agreement with NARA (FRCP) for the storage of records.
(d) Transfers to NARA Federal Records Centers must be preceded by the submission of a Standard Form (SF) 135, Records Transmittal and Receipt. Preparation and submission of this form will meet the requirements for records description provided in § 1232.14(c), except the folder title list required for permanent and unscheduled records. A folder title list is also required for records that are scheduled for sampling or selection after transfer.
(e) A separate SF 135 is required for each individual records series having the same disposition authority and disposition date.
(f) For further guidance on transfer of records to a NARA Federal Records Center, consult the NARA Federal Records Centers Program Web site (
For assistance on selecting an appropriate site among NARA facilities for storage of vital records, agencies may contact NARA (NR), 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001. The actual transfers are governed by the general requirements and procedures in this part and 36 CFR part 1223.
(a) Civilian personnel files:
(1) General Records Schedules 1 and 2 specify that certain Federal civilian personnel, medical, and pay records must be centrally stored at the National Personnel Records Center (Civilian Personnel Records), 111 Winnebago Street, St. Louis, MO 63118. An agency must transfer the following four types of records to the NPRC:
(i) Official personnel folders of separated Federal civilian employees;
(ii) Service record cards of employees who separated or transferred on or before December 31, 1947;
(iii) Audited individual earnings and pay cards and comprehensive payrolls; and
(iv) Employee medical folders of separated Federal civilian employees.
(b) The following types of medical treatment records are transferred to the NPRC:
(1) Clinical (hospital inpatient) records created for all categories of patients receiving inpatient treatment and extended ambulatory procedures (active duty military personnel, retirees, and dependents); and
(2) Medical treatment records (outpatient) for military retirees, dependents, and others treated at military health care facilities.
Agencies must use the following procedures when transferring records to the NPRC:
(a)
(2) Transfer EMFs and OPFs in separate folders.
(3) Retirement of individual folders is based on the date of separation and should occur within 90 to 120 days after the employee separates from Federal service. Civilian personnel records must be retired in Standard Form 66, Official Personnel Folder, or Standard Form 66C, Merged Records Personnel Folder, as appropriate.
(4) Consult the Office of Personnel Management Web site (
(b)
(c)
(a) Agency records transferred to a NARA Federal Records Center remain in the legal custody of the agency. NARA acts as the agency's agent in maintaining the records. NARA will not disclose the record except to the agency that maintains the record, or under rules established by that agency which are consistent with existing laws.
(b) For general reference requests agencies may use the Center Information Processing System (CIPS), the Optional Form 11, Reference Request—Federal Records Centers, a form jointly designated by that agency and NARA, or their electronic equivalents.
(c) For civilian personnel records, agencies must use the following forms:
(1) Standard Form 127, Request for Official Personnel Folder (Separated Employee), to request transmission of personnel folders of separated employees stored at the National Personnel Records Center. Additional instructions on requesting OPFs are available online at
(2) Standard Form 184, Request for Employee Medical Folder (Separated Employee), to request medical folders stored at the National Personnel Records Center. Additional instructions on requesting EMFs are available online at
(3) Optional Form 11, Reference Request— Federal Records Center to request medical records transferred to other NARA Federal Records Centers prior to September 1, 1984. The request must include the name and address of the agency's designated medical records manager
(d) For military personnel records reference requests, the following forms must be used:
(1) Federal agencies must use Standard Form (SF) 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records, to obtain information from military service records in the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records); authorized agencies requesting the loan of a military personnel record may order records using eMilrecs (electronic equivalent of the SF 180). Additional information is available online at:
(2) A military veteran or the next of kin of a deceased, former member of the military may order military personnel records through the submission of an SF 180 or an online records request system. Additional information is available online at:
(3) Members of the public and non-governmental organizations also may obtain copies of SF 180 by submitting a written request to the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records), 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132. OMB Control Number 3095-0029 has been assigned to the SF 180.
(e) Federal agencies must use an SF 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records, to obtain information from military service records in the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records). Agencies may furnish copies of the SF 180 to the public to aid in inquiries. Copies of SF 180 are available at:
(f) For further guidance on requesting records from a NARA Federal Records Center, consult the NARA Federal Records Centers Program Web site (
(a) The National Personnel Records Center will destroy records covered by General Records Schedules 1 and 2 in accordance with those schedules without further agency clearance.
(b) NARA Federal Records Centers will destroy other eligible Federal records only with the written concurrence of the agency having legal custody of the records.
(c) NARA Federal Records Centers will maintain documentation on the final disposition of records, as required in 36 CFR 1226.22(c).
(d) When NARA approves an extension of retention period beyond the time authorized in the records schedule for records stored in NARA Federal Records Centers, NARA will notify those affected records centers to suspend disposal of the records (see § 1226.18).
(e) For further guidance on records disposition, consult the NARA Federal Records Centers Program Web site (
44 U.S.C. 2107 and 2108.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2107 and 2108.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1235.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 8.3 (Designing and implementing records systems), 9.6 (Storage and handling), and 9.7 (Access) are particularly relevant to this part.
The ANSI and ISO publications cited in this section are available from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th floor, New York, NY 10036 or electronically at
ANSI X3.39-1986, American National Standard: Recorded Magnetic Tape for Information Interchange (1600 CPI, PE).
ANSI X3.54-1986, American National Standard: Recorded Magnetic Tape for Information Interchange (6250 CPI, Group Coded Recording).
ANSI X3.180-1990, American National Standard: Magnetic Tape and Cartridge for Information Interchange—18-Track, Parallel,
ANSI/NISO/ISO 9660-1990, American National Standard for Volume and File Structure of CD-ROM for Information Exchange.
FIPSPUB 173-1, Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS).
ISO/IEC 10918-1: Information Technology—Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous-tone Still Images (1994).
ISO/IEC 15307:1997, First edition, December 1, 1997, Information technology—Data interchange on 12.7 mm 128-track magnetic tape cartridges—DLT 4 format.
ISO/IEC 15896:1999, First edition, December 15, 1999, Information technology—Data interchange on 12.7 mm 208-track magnetic tape cartridges—DLT 5 format.
ISO/IEC 16382:2000, First edition, May 15, 2000, Information technology—Data interchange on 12.7 mm 208-track magnetic tape cartridges—DLT 6 format.
Agencies must transfer to the National Archives of the United States records that have been scheduled as permanent on an SF 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority, records that are designated as permanent in a General Records Schedule; and, when appropriate, records that are accretions to holdings (continuations of series already accessioned.)
Permanent records must be transferred to the National Archives of the United States when:
(a) The records are eligible for transfer based on the transfer date specified in a NARA-approved records schedule, or
(b) The records have been in existence for more than 30 years (see also § 1235.14).
(a) Agencies may retain records longer than specified on a records disposition schedule only with written approval from NARA.
(b) If the agency determines that the records are needed for the conduct of regular business, the records officer must submit to NARA (NWM) a written request certifying continuing need. This certification must:
(1) Include a comprehensive description and location of records to be retained;
(2) Cite the NARA-approved disposition authority;
(3) Describe the current business for which the records are required;
(4) Estimate the length of time the records will be needed (if no date is provided by the agency, approved certification requests will be effective for a maximum of five years);
(5) Explain why agency needs cannot be met by NARA reference services or copies of records deposited in the National Archives of the United States; and
(6) If records are retained to enable routine public reference by the agency rather than NARA, cite the statutory authority authorizing this agency activity.
(a) Approval. NARA will provide written approval of the request to retain the records for the specified period within 30 days of receipt of the request.
(b) Disapproval. NARA will provide written disapproval of an agency's request within 30 days. Requests will be denied if the agency is retaining the records primarily to:
(1) Provide access services to persons outside the agency that can be provided by NARA, or
(2) Function as an agency archives, unless specifically authorized by statute or by NARA.
Agencies transfer records by submitting a signed SF 258, Agreement to Transfer Records to the National Archives of the United States. Each SF 258 must correlate to a specific records series or other aggregation of records, as identified in an item on the SF 115 or cited on the SF 258.
When completing an SF 258, agencies must indicate restrictions on the use and examination of records and attach a written justification. The justification must cite the statute or Freedom of Information Act exemption (5 U.S.C. 552(b)), as amended, that authorizes the restrictions.
Legal custody of records passes from the agency to NARA when the appropriate NARA official signs the SF 258 acknowledging receipt of the records.
(a) NARA will enforce restrictions that are consistent with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) for both official use of the records by Federal agencies and research by the public.
(b) NARA regulations in Subchapter C of this chapter apply to Federal agency personnel using transferred records for official Government purposes, and to the public at large.
(a)
(b)
(1) After records are more than 30 years old, most statutory and other restrictions on transferred records expire. NARA, however, after consulting with the transferring agency, may keep the restrictions in force for a longer period.
(2) See Part 1256 of this chapter for restrictions on specific categories of records, including national security classified information and information that would invade the privacy of an individual, that NARA restricts beyond 30 years.
NARA will not destroy records transferred to NARA's custody except:
(a) With the written concurrence of the agency or its successor, or
(b) As authorized on an SF 258.
In addition to complying with subparts A and B of this part, agencies must follow the specifications and requirements in this subpart when transferring audiovisual, cartographic, architectural, and electronic records to the National Archives of the United States. In general, such records must be transferred to the National Archives of the United States as soon as they become inactive or whenever the agency cannot provide proper care and handling of the records, including adequate storage conditions (see parts 1236 and 1237 of this chapter).
In general the physical types described below comprise the minimum record elements that are needed for future preservation, duplication, and reference for audiovisual records, cartographic records, and related records.
(a)
(1) Agency-sponsored or produced motion picture films (e.g., public information films) whether for public or internal use:
(i) Original negative or color original plus separate optical sound track;
(ii) Intermediate master positive or duplicate negative plus optical track sound track; and,
(iii) Sound projection print and video recording, if they exist.
(2) Agency-acquired motion picture films: Two projection prints in good condition or one projection print and one videotape.
(3) Unedited footage, outtakes, and trims (the discards of film productions) that are properly arranged, labeled, and described and show unstaged, unrehearsed events of historical interest or historically significant phenomena:
(i) Original negative or color original; and
(ii) Matching print or videotape.
(b)
(1) For videotape, the original or earliest generation videotape and a copy for reference. Agencies must comply with requirements in 36 CFR 1237.12(d) for original videotapes, although VHS copies can be transferred as reference copies.
(2) For video discs, the premaster videotape used to manufacture the video disc and two copies of the disc. Agencies must consult NARA (NWCS) before initiating transfers of video discs that depend on interactive software and nonstandard equipment.
(c)
(1) For analog black-and-white photographs, an original negative and a captioned print. The captioning information may be maintained in another file such as a database if the file number correlation is clear. If the original negative is nitrate, unstable acetate, or glass based, the agency must also transfer a duplicate negative on a polyester base.
(2) For analog color photographs, the original color negative, color transparency, or color slide; a captioned print (or captioning information maintained in another file if the file number correlation is clear); and a duplicate negative, or slide, or transparency, if they exist.
(3) For slide sets, the original and a reference set, and the related audio recording (in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section) and script.
(4) For other pictorial records such as posters, original art work, and filmstrips, the original and a reference copy.
(d)
(e)
(1) Disc recordings.
(i) For compact discs, the origination recording regardless of form and two compact discs.
(ii) For analog disc recordings, the master tape and two disc pressings of each recording, typically a vinyl copy for playback at 33
(2) For analog audio recordings on magnetic tape (open reel, cassette, or cartridge), the original tape, or the earliest available generation of the
(e)
(1) Existing finding aids such as data sheets, shot lists, continuities, review sheets, catalogs, indexes, list of captions, and other documentation that are needed or useful to identify or retrieve audiovisual records. Agencies must consult NARA (NWCS) concerning transfer of finding aids that do not meet the requirements of this part for electronic records.
(2) Production case files or similar files that include copies of production contracts, scripts, transcripts, and appropriate documentation bearing on the origin, acquisition, release, and ownership of the production.
(f)
(1) Manuscript maps; printed and processed maps on which manuscript changes, additions, or annotations have been made for record purposes or which bear manuscript signatures to indicate official approval; and single printed or processed maps that have been attached to or interfiled with other documents of a record character or in any way made an integral part of a record.
(2) Master sets of printed or processed maps issued by the agency. A master set must include one copy of each edition of a printed or processed map issued.
(3) Paper copies of computer-related and computer-plotted maps that can no longer be reproduced electronically.
(4) Index maps, card indexes, lists, catalogs, or other finding aids that may be helpful in using the maps transferred.
(5) Records related to preparing, compiling, editing, or printing maps, such as manuscript field notebooks of surveys, triangulation and other geodetic computations, and project folders containing agency specifications for creating the maps.
(g)
(1) Vertical and oblique negative aerial film created using conventional aircraft.
(2) Annotated copy negatives, internegatives, rectified negatives, and glass plate negatives from vertical and oblique aerial film created using conventional aircraft.
(3) Annotated prints from aerial film created using conventional aircraft.
(4) Infrared, ultraviolet, multispectral (multiband), video, imagery radar, and related tapes, converted to a film base.
(5) Indexes and other finding aids in the form of photo mosaics, flight line indexes, coded grids, and coordinate grids.
(h)
(1) Design drawings, preliminary and presentation drawings, and models that document the evolution of the design of a building or structure.
(2) Master sets of drawings that document both the initial design and construction and subsequent alterations of a building or structure. This category includes final working drawings, “as-built” drawings, shop drawings, and repair and alteration drawings.
(3) Drawings of repetitive or standard details of one or more buildings or structures.
(4) “Measured” drawings of existing buildings and original or photocopies of drawings reviewed for approval.
(5) Related finding aids and specifications to be followed.
(i)
(a) Each agency must retain a copy of permanent electronic records that it transfers to NARA until it receives official notification that NARA has assumed responsibility for continuing preservation of the records.
(b) When transferring electronic records, the agency must consult with NARA (NWCS for digital photographs and accompanying metadata, NWME for other electronic records) for guidance when transferring these types of electronic records in forms or formats other than those prescribed in this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(1) Open-reel magnetic tape must be on
(2) 18-track 3480-class cartridges must be recorded at 37,871 bpi that meet ANSI X3.180-1990, American National Standard: Magnetic Tape and Cartridge for Information Interchange—18-Track, Parallel,
(3) DLT tape IV cartridges must be recorded in an uncompressed format. Agencies interested in transferring scheduled electronic records using a Tape Archive (TAR) utility must contact NARA's Electronic and Special Media Records Services Division (NWME) to initiate transfer discussions. The data must be blocked at no more than 32,760 bytes per block and must conform to the standards cited in the table as follows:
(c)
(1) CD-ROMs used for this purpose must conform to ANSI/NISO/ISO 9660-1990, American National Standard for Volume and File Structure of CD-ROM for Information Exchange.
(2) Permanent electronic records must be stored in discrete files. Transferred CD-ROMs may contain other files, such as software or temporary records, but all permanent records must be in files that contain only permanent records. Agencies must indicate at the time of transfer if a CD-ROM contains temporary records and where those records are located on the CD-ROM. The agency must also specify whether NARA should return the CD-ROM to the agency or dispose of it after copying the permanent records to an archival medium.
(3) If permanent electronic records are stored on both CD-ROM and other media, such as magnetic tape, the agency and NARA must agree on the medium that will be used to transfer the records into the National Archives of the United States.
(d)
(1) FTP file structure may use the 64-character Joliet extension naming convention only when letters, numbers, dashes (-), and underscores (_) are used in the file and/or directory names, with a slash (/) used to indicate directory structures. Otherwise, FTP file structure must conform to an 8.3 file naming convention and file directory structure as cited in ANSI/NISO/ISO 9660-1990, American National Standard for Volume and File Structure of CD-ROM for Information Exchange.
(2) Permanent electronic records must be transferred in discrete files, separate from temporary files. All permanent records must be transferred in files that contain only permanent records.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) This paragraph applies to the documentation for the following types of electronic records:
(i) E-mail messages with attachments;
(ii) Scanned images of textual records;
(iii) Records in portable document (PDF) format;
(iv) Digital photographic records; and
(v) Web content records.
(2) Documentation for electronic records in these formats must follow the transfer requirements available on the NARA Electronic Records Management Initiative Web page at
(a)
(1) Agencies must transfer electronic records in a format that is independent of specific hardware or software. Except as specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, the records must be written in ASCII or EBCDIC with all control characters and other non-data characters removed. Agencies must consult with NARA (NWME) about electronic records in other formats.
(2) Agencies must have advance approval from NARA for compression of the records, and agencies must comply with a request from NARA to provide the software to decompress the records. The records must not be in an aggregated format (e.g., TAR files).
(b)
(c)
(1) The Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) as defined in the Federal Information Processing Standard 173-1 (June 10, 1994) that is incorporated by reference. Digital geospatial data files created on systems procured prior to February 1994 which do not have a SDTS capability are exempt from this requirement. Agencies must consult with NARA regarding transfer of noncompliant digital geospatial data files created after February 1, 1994.
(2) The Geography Markup Language (GML) as defined by the Open GIS Consortium.
(d)
(e)
44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, and 3105.
The statutory authority for this part is 44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, and 3105. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, applies to records and information systems containing records.
(a) See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout subchapter B, including part 1236.
(b) As used in part 1236—
These regulations are in conformance with ISO 15489-1:2001.
Agencies must:
(a) Incorporate management of electronic records into the records management activities required by parts 1220-1235;
(b) Integrate records management and preservation considerations into the design, development, enhancement, and implementation of electronic information systems in accordance with subpart B of this part; and
(c) Appropriately manage electronic records in accordance with subpart C of this part.
The following types of records management controls are needed to ensure that Federal records in electronic information systems can provide adequate and proper documentation of agency business for as long as the information is needed. Agencies must incorporate controls into the electronic information system or integrate them into a recordkeeping system that is external to the information system itself (see § 1236.20).
(a) Reliability: Controls to ensure a full and accurate representation of the transactions, activities or facts to which they attest and can be depended upon in the course of subsequent transactions or activities;
(b) Authenticity: Controls to protect against unauthorized addition, deletion, alteration, use and concealment;
(c) Integrity: Controls, such as audit trails, to ensure records are complete and unaltered;
(d) Usability: Mechanisms to ensure records can be located, retrieved, presented and interpreted.
(e) Content: Mechanisms to preserve the information contained within the record itself that was produced by the creator of the record;
(f) Context: Mechanisms to implement cross-references to related records that show the organizational, functional and operational circumstances about the record, which will vary depending upon the business, legal and regulatory requirements of the business activity; and
(g) Structure: Controls to ensure the maintenance of the physical and logical format of the records and the relationships between the data elements.
As part of the agency's capital planning and systems development life cycle processes, ensure:
(a) Records management controls (see § 1236.10) are planned and implemented in the system.
(b) All records in the system will be retrievable and usable for as long as needed to conduct agency business (i.e., for their NARA-approved retention period). Where the records will need to be retained beyond the planned life of the system, agencies must plan and budget for the migration of records and their associated metadata to new storage media or formats in order to avoid loss due to media decay or technology obsolescence. (See § 1236.14.)
(c) The transfer of permanent records to NARA in accordance with part 1235 of this subchapter.
(d) Provision of a standard interchange format (e.g., ASCII or XML) when needed to permit the exchange of electronic documents between offices using different software or operating systems.
Agencies must design and implement migration strategies to counteract hardware and software dependencies of electronic records whenever the records must be maintained and used beyond the life of the information system in which the records are originally created or captured. To successfully protect records against technological obsolescence, agencies must:
(a) Determine if the NARA-approved retention period for the records will be longer than the life of the system where they are currently stored. If so, plan for the migration of the records to a new system before the current system is retired.
(b) Carry out upgrades of hardware and software in such a way as to retain the functionality and integrity of the electronic records created in them. Retention of record functionality and integrity requires:
(1) Retaining the records in a usable format until their authorized disposition date. Where migration includes
(2) Any necessary conversion of storage media to provide compatibility with current hardware and software; and
(3) Maintaining a link between records and their metadata through conversion or migration, including capture of all relevant associated metadata at the point of migration (for both the records and the migration process).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(c)
(a) Agencies must issue instructions to staff on the following retention and management requirements for electronic mail records:
(1) The names of sender and all addressee(s) and date the message was sent must be preserved for each electronic mail record in order for the context of the message to be understood. The agency may determine that other metadata is needed to meet agency business needs, e.g., receipt information.
(2) Attachments to electronic mail messages that are an integral part of the record must be preserved as part of the electronic mail record or linked to the electronic mail record with other related records.
(3) If the electronic mail system identifies users by codes or nicknames or identifies addressees only by the name of a distribution list, retain the intelligent or full names on directories or distribution lists to ensure identification of the sender and addressee(s) of messages that are records.
(4) Some e-mail systems provide calendars and task lists for users. These may meet the definition of Federal record. Calendars that meet the definition of Federal records are to be managed in accordance with the provisions of General Records Schedule 23, Item 5.
(5) Draft documents that are circulated on electronic mail systems may be records if they meet the criteria specified in 36 CFR 1222.10(b).
(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
(c) Agencies may elect to manage electronic mail records with very short-term NARA-approved retention periods (transitory records with a very short-term retention period of 180 days or less as provided by GRS 23, Item 7, or by a NARA-approved agency records schedule) on the electronic mail system itself, without the need to copy the record to a paper or electronic recordkeeping system, provided that:
(1) Users do not delete the messages before the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period, and
(2) The system's automatic deletion rules ensure preservation of the records until the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period.
(d) Except for those electronic mail records within the scope of paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Agencies must not use an electronic mail system to store the recordkeeping copy of electronic mail messages identified as Federal records unless that system has all of the features specified in § 1236.20(b).
(2) If the electronic mail system is not designed to be a recordkeeping system, agencies must instruct staff on how to copy Federal records from the electronic mail system to a recordkeeping system.
(e) Agencies that retain permanent electronic mail records scheduled for transfer to the National Archives must either store them in a format and on a medium that conforms to the requirements concerning transfer at 36 CFR part 1235 or maintain the ability to convert the records to the required format and medium at the time transfer is scheduled.
(f) Agencies that maintain paper recordkeeping systems must print and file their electronic mail records with the related transmission and receipt data specified by the agency's electronic mail instructions.
(a) Agencies that manage unstructured electronic records electronically must ensure that the records are filed in a recordkeeping system that meets the requirements in § 1236.10(b).
(b) Agencies that maintain paper files as their recordkeeping systems must establish policies and issue instructions to staff to ensure that unstructured records are printed out for filing in a way that captures any pertinent hidden text (such as comment fields) or structural relationships (e.g., among worksheets in spreadsheets or other complex documents) required to meet agency business needs.
(a) Agencies must maintain inventories of electronic information systems and review the systems periodically for conformance to established agency procedures,
(b) Agencies must maintain up-to-date documentation about electronic information systems that is adequate to:
(1) Specify all technical characteristics necessary for reading and processing the records contained in the system;
(2) Identify all inputs and outputs;
(3) Define the contents of the files and records;
(4) Determine restrictions on access and use;
(5) Understand the purpose(s) and function(s) of the system;
(6) Describe update cycles or conditions and rules for adding, changing, or deleting information in the system; and
(7) Ensure the timely, authorized disposition of the records.
(a) Agencies must maintain the storage and test areas for electronic records storage media containing permanent and unscheduled records within the following temperature and relative humidity ranges:
Temperature—62 ° to 68 °F.
Relative humidity—35% to 45%
(b) Electronic media storage libraries and test or evaluation areas that contain permanent or unscheduled records must be smoke-free.
(c) For the maintenance and storage of CDs and DVDS, see National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 500-252, Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs at
(d) Agencies must test magnetic computer tape media no more than 6 months prior to using them to store electronic records that are unscheduled or scheduled for permanent retention. This test should verify that the magnetic computer tape media are free of permanent errors and in compliance with NIST or industry standards.
(e) Agencies must annually read a statistical sample of all magnetic computer tape media containing permanent and unscheduled records to identify any loss of data and to discover and correct the causes of data loss. In magnetic computer tape libraries with 1800 or fewer tape media, a 20% sample or a sample size of 50 media, whichever is larger, should be read. In magnetic computer tape libraries with more than 1800 media, a sample of 384 media should be read. Magnetic computer tape media with 10 or more errors should be replaced and, when possible, lost data must be restored. All other magnetic computer tape media which might have been affected by the same cause (i.e., poor quality tape, high usage, poor environment, improper handling) must be read and corrected as appropriate.
(f) Agencies must copy permanent or unscheduled data on electronic records storage media before the media are 10 years old onto tested and verified new electronic media.
44 U.S.C. 2904 and 3101.
Agencies must manage audiovisual, cartographic, and related records in accordance with parts 1220-1235. This part prescribes additional policies and procedures for managing audiovisual, cartographic, and related records to ensure adequate and proper documentation and authorized, timely, and appropriate disposition.
The authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 3101.
(a) See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used throughout subchapter B, including part 1237.
(b) As used in part 1237—
(a) The following publications cited in this section are hereby incorporated by reference into this part 1237. They are available from the issuing organizations at the addresses listed in this section. These standards are also available for inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated by reference as they exist on the date of approval and a notice of any change in these materials will be published in the
(b) The following International (ISO) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards are available from ANSI, 25 West 43rd Street, Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10036 or online at
(c) The following NFPA standard is available from the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9109, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, or on-line at
Each Federal agency must manage its audiovisual, cartographic and related records as required in Parts 1220 and 1224. In addition, agencies must:
(a) Prescribe the types of audiovisual, cartographic and related records to be created and maintained. (See § 1235.42 for requirements for permanent audiovisual records.)
(b) Create and maintain current inventories showing the location of all generations of audiovisual records and all cartographic, and related records, especially those not maintained centrally by the agency.
For permanent audiovisual records, the following record elements must be created or acquired and preserved for transfer into the National Archives of the United States. (See § 1235.52 for transfer requirements for permanent audiovisual records.)
(a)
(1) Agency-sponsored or produced motion picture films (e.g., public information films) whether for public or internal use:
(i) Original negative or color original plus separate optical sound track;
(ii) Intermediate master positive or duplicate negative plus optical track sound track; and,
(iii) Sound projection print and video recording, if both exist.
(2) Agency-acquired motion picture films: Two projection prints in good condition or one projection print and one videotape.
(3) Unedited footage, outtakes and trims (the discards of film productions) that are properly arranged, labeled, and described and show unstaged, unrehearsed events of historical interest or historically significant phenomena:
(i) Original negative or color original; and
(ii) Matching print or videotape.
(b)
(1) For analog videotapes, the original or earliest generation videotape using industrial-quality or professional videotapes for originals and a copy for reference.
(2) For video discs, the premaster video used to manufacture the video disc and two copies of the disc.
(c)
(1) For analog black-and-white photographs, an original negative and a captioned print or the captioning information maintained in another file such as a database if the file number correlation is clear. If the original negative is nitrate, unstable acetate, or glass based, a duplicate negative on a polyester base is needed.
(2) For analog color photographs, the original color negative, color transparency, or color slide; a captioned print of the original color negative and/or captioning information in another file such as a database with a clear correlation to the relevant image; and a duplicate negative, or slide, or transparency.
(3) For slide sets, the original and a reference set, and the related audio recording and script.
(4) For other pictorial records such as posters, original art work, and filmstrips, the original and a reference copy.
(d)
(e)
(1) Disc recordings:
(i) For compact discs, the origination recording regardless of form and two compact discs.
(ii) For analog disc recordings, the master tape and two disc pressings of each recording, typically a vinyl copy for playback at 33
(2) For analog audio recordings on magnetic tape (open reel, cassette, or cartridge), the original tape, or the earliest available generation of the recording, and a subsequent generation copy for reference.
(f)
(1) Existing finding aids such as data sheets, shot lists, continuities, review
(2) Production case files or similar files that include copies of production contracts, scripts, transcripts, and appropriate documentation bearing on the origin, acquisition, release, and ownership of the production.
The disposition instructions must also provide that permanent records be transferred to National Archives of the United States within 5-10 years after creation (see also 36 CFR part 1235) See § 1235.42 for specifications and standards for transfer to National Archives of the United States of audiovisual, cartographic, and related records.
Agencies must maintain appropriate storage conditions for permanent, long-term temporary, or unscheduled audiovisual records:
(a) Ensure that audiovisual records storage facilities comply with 36 CFR part 1234.
(b) For the storage of permanent, long-term temporary, or unscheduled records, use audiovisual storage containers or enclosures made of non-corroding metal, inert plastics, paper products and other safe materials recommended in ISO 18902: 2001, Imaging Materials—Processed Photographic Films, Plates, and Papers—Filing Enclosures and Storage Containers; and ISO 18911: 2000, Imaging Materials—Processed Safety Photographic Films—Storage Practices;
(c) Store originals and use copies (e.g., negatives and prints) separately, whenever practicable. Store distinct audiovisual record series separately from textual series (e.g., poster series separately from other kinds of agency publications, or photographic series separately from general reference files). Retain intellectual control through finding aids, annotations, or other descriptive mechanisms;
(d) Store series of permanent and unscheduled x-ray films, i.e., x-rays that are not interspersed among paper records (case files), in accordance with § 1238.20. Store series of temporary x-ray films under conditions that will ensure their preservation for their full retention period, in accordance with ANSI/NAPM IT9.11-1993, Imaging Media—Processed Safety Photographic Films—Storage;
(e) Store posters and similar graphic works in oversize formats, in map cases, hanging files, or other enclosures that are sufficiently large or flexible to accommodate the records without rolling, folding, bending, or other ways that compromise image integrity and stability; and
(f) Store optical disks in individual containers and use felt-tip, water-based markers for disk labeling.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
Agencies must:
(a) Handle audiovisual records in accordance with commonly accepted industry practices.
(b) Protect audiovisual records, including those recorded on digital media or magnetic sound or video media, from accidental or deliberate alteration or erasure.
(c) If different versions of audiovisual productions (e.g., short and long versions or foreign-language versions) are prepared, keep an unaltered copy of each version for record purposes.
(d) Link audiovisual records with their finding aids, including captions and published and unpublished catalogs, inventories, indexes, and production files and similar documentation created in the course of audiovisual production. Establish and communicate agency-wide, clear captioning standards, procedures, and responsibilities.
(e) Maintain current and accessible documentation identifying creators of audiovisual products, their precise relationship to the agency, and the nature and status of copyright or other rights affecting the present and future use of items acquired from sources outside the agency. (See § 1222.30 for requirements to ensure agency ownership of appropriate contractor produced records.)
(f) Create unique identifiers for all audiovisual records (e.g., for digital files, use file naming conventions), that clarify connections between related elements (e.g., photographic prints and negatives, or original edited masters and dubbing for video and audio recordings), and that associate records with the relevant creating, sponsoring, or requesting offices.
(g) Maintain temporary and permanent audiovisual records separately.
(h) Require that personnel wear white lint-free cotton (or other approved) gloves when handling film.
Agencies must:
(a) Maintain permanent and unscheduled cartographic, architectural, and engineering records in an environment that does not exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit and with relative humidity under 50%.
(b) Create an identification scheme for each series and assign unique identification designations to each item within a series.
(c) Maintain lists or indexes for each series with cross-references to related textual records.
(d) Avoid interfiling separate series of maps, charts, or drawings, and file permanent cartographic and architectural records separately from temporary series unless hand-corrected versions have been systematically filed with other published maps in a central or master file.
(e) Avoid rolling and folding maps and drawings. Store permanent maps and drawings flat in shallow drawer map cases in acid-free folders.
(f) Do not laminate original oversize records. Consult NARA (NWT) for preservation, storage, and treatment options.
(a) Mark each aerial film container with a unique identification code to facilitate identification and filing.
(b) Mark aerial film indexes with the unique aerial film identification codes or container codes for the aerial film that they index. Also, file and mark the aerial indexes in such a way that they can easily be retrieved by area covered.
Agencies must:
(a) For picture negatives and motion picture preprints (negatives, masters, and all other copies) of permanent, long-term temporary, or unscheduled records, use polyester base media and process in accordance with industry standards as specified in ISO 18906: 2000—Imaging Materials—Photographic Films—Specifications for Safety Film, and ISO 18901: 2002—Imaging Materials—Processed Silver-Gelatin Type Black-and-White Films—Specifications for Stability.
(1) Ensure that residual sodium thiosulfate (hypo) on newly processed black-and-white photographic film does not exceed 0.014 grams per square meter.
(2) Require laboratories to process film in accordance with this standard. Process color film in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(3) If using reversal type processing, require full photographic reversal; i.e., develop, bleach, expose, develop, fix, and wash.
(b) Avoid using motion pictures in a final “A & B” format (two precisely matched reels designed to be printed together) for the reproduction of excerpts or stock footage.
(c) Use only industrial or professional video and audio recording equipment, new and previously unrecorded magnetic tape stock and blank optical media (e.g., DVD and CD), for original copies of permanent, long-term temporary, or unscheduled recordings. Limit the use of consumer formats to distribution or reference copies or to subjects scheduled for destruction. Avoid using videocassettes in the VHS format for use as originals of permanent or unscheduled records.
(d) Record permanent, long-term temporary, or unscheduled audio recordings on optical media from major manufacturers. Avoid using cassettes, as originals for permanent records or unscheduled records (although they may be used as reference copies).
(e) For born-digital or scanned digital images that are scheduled as permanent or unscheduled, a record (or master) version of each image must be comparable in quality to a 35 mm film photograph or better, and must be saved in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) or JPEG File Interchange Format (JFIF, JPEG). For more detailed requirements on image format and resolution, see § 1235.48(e) of this chapter. For temporary digital photographs, agencies select formats that they deem most suitable for fulfillment of business needs.
Digital photographs, either originating in digital form (“born-digital”) or scanned from photographic prints, slides, and negatives, are subject to the provisions of this part and the requirements of 36 CFR part 1236, and NARA guidance for digital photographs located on the following NARA Web page—
(a) Schedule digital photographs and related databases as soon as possible for the minimum time needed for agency business and transfer the records promptly according to the records schedule.
(b) Select image management software and hardware tools that will meet long-term archival requirements, including transfer to the National Archives of the United States, as well as business needs. Additional information and assistance is available from NARA (NWM).
(c) When developing digital image storage strategies, build redundancy into storage systems, backing up image files through on-line approaches, off-line, or combinations thereof. (See also electronic storage requirements in § 1236.28 of this chapter).
(d) For scanned digital images of photographic prints, slides, and negatives that are scheduled as permanent or unscheduled, document the quality control inspection process employed during scanning.
(1) Visually inspect a sample of the images for defects, evaluate the accuracy of finding aids, and verify file header information and file name integrity.
(2) Conduct the sample using a volume sufficiently large to yield statistically valid results, in accordance with one of the quality sampling methods presented in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association of Information and Image Management (AIIM) TR34:1996—Sampling Procedures for Inspection by Attributes of Images in Electronic Image Management and Micrographic Systems. (See also ISO 2859-1: 1996—Sampling Procedures for Inspection by Attributes—Part 1: Sampling Plans Indexed by Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) for Lot-by-Lot Inspection.)
(e) For born-digital images scheduled as permanent, long-term temporary, or unscheduled, perform periodic inspections, using sampling methods or more comprehensive verification systems (e.g., checksum programs), to evaluate image file stability, documentation quality, and finding aid reliability. Agencies must also establish procedures for refreshing digital data (recopying) and file migration, especially for images and databases retained for five years or more.
(f) Designate a record set of images that is maintained separately from other versions. Record sets of permanent or unscheduled images that have already been compressed once (e.g., compressed TIFF or first-generation JPEG) must not be subjected to further changes in image size.
(g) Organize record images in logical series. Group permanent digital images separately from temporary digital images.
(h) Document information about digital photographic images as they are produced. For permanent or unscheduled images descriptive elements must include:
(1) An identification number;
(2) Information about image content;
(3) Identity and organizational affiliation of the photographer;
(4) Existence of any copyright or other potential restrictions on image use; and
(5) Technical data including file format and version, bit depth, image size, camera make and model, compression method and level, custom or generic color profiles (ICC/ICM profile), and, where applicable, Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) information embedded in the header of image files by certain digital cameras.
(i) Provide a unique file name to identify for digital image.
(j) Develop finding aids sufficiently detailed to ensure efficient and accurate retrieval. Ensure that indexes, caption lists, and assignment logs can be used to identify and chronologically cut-off block of images for transfer to the NARA.
(a) The nitrocellulose base, a substance akin to gun cotton, is chemically unstable and highly flammable. Agencies must handle nitrocellulose-base film (used in the manufacture of sheet film, 35 mm motion pictures, aerial and still photography into the 1950s) as specified below:
(1) Remove nitrocellulose film materials (e.g. 35 mm motion picture film and large series of still pictures) from records storage areas.
(2) Notify NARA (NWM) about the existence of nitrocellulose film materials for a determination of whether they may be destroyed or retained after a copy is made by the agency for transfer to NARA. If NARA appraises nitrate film materials as disposable and the agency wishes to retain them, the agency must follow the guidance in NFPA 40-2007, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Cellulose Nitrate Film.
(3) Follow the packing and shipping of nitrate film as specified in Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 172.101, Hazardous materials table; 172.504, Transportation; 173.24, Standard requirements for all packages; and 173.177, Motion picture film and X-ray film—nitrocellulose base).
(b) Agencies must inspect cellulose-acetate film periodically for an acetic odor, wrinkling, or the presence of crystalline deposits on the edge or surface of the film that indicate deterioration. Agencies must notify NARA (NWM) immediately after inspection about deteriorating permanent or unscheduled audiovisual records composed of cellulose acetate so that they can be copied by the agency prior to transfer of the original and duplicate film to NARA.
44 U.S.C. chapters 29 and 33.
This part covers the standards and procedures for using micrographic technology in the management of Federal records.
The statutory authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. chapters 29 and 33.
See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1238.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO15489-1:2001, part 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), and 9.6 (storage and handling).
(a) The following publications cited in this part are hereby incorporated by reference into this part 1238. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of approval, and a notice of change in these materials will be published in the
(b) The publications incorporated by reference listed in this section are available from the issuing organization. They may also be examined at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20408.
(c)
ANSI/ISO 5.2-1991, ANSI/NAPM IT2.19-1994, February 20, 1995, American National Standard for Photography-Density Measurements—Part 2: Geometric Conditions for Transmission Density.
ANSI/ISO 5.3-1995, ANSI/NAPM IT2.18-1996, March 8, 1996, American National Standard for Photography-Density Measurements—Part 3: Spectral Conditions.
ISO 18901:2002, Imaging materials—Processed silver-gelatin type black-and-white films—Specifications for stability.
ISO 18902:2001, Imaging materials—Processed photographic films, plates, and paper—Filing enclosures and storage containers.
ISO 18911: 2000(E), First edition, November 1, 2000, Imaging materials—Processed safety photographic films—Storage practices.
(d)
ANSI/AIIM MS1-1996, August 8, 1996, Standard Recommended Practice for Alphanumeric Computer-Output Microforms-Operational Practices for Inspection and Quality Control.
ANSI/AIIM MS5-1992, December 21, 1992, Standard for Information and Image Management-Microfiche.
ANSI/AIIM MS14-1996, August 8, 1996, Standard Recommended Practice-Specifications for 16mm and 35mm Roll Microfilm.
ANSI/AIIM MS19-1993, August 18, 1993, Standard Recommended Practice-Identification of Microforms.
ANSI/AIIM MS23-1998, June 2, 1998, Standard Recommended Practice-Production, Inspection, and Quality Assurance of First-Generation, Silver Microforms of Documents.
ANSI/AIIM MS32-1996, February 16, 1996, Standard Recommended Practice-Microrecording of Engineering Source Documents on 35mm Microfilm.
ANSI/AIIM MS41-1996, July 16, 1996, Dimensions of Unitized Microfilm Carriers and Apertures (Aperture, Camera, Copy and Image Cards).
ANSI/AIIM MS43-1998, June 2, 1998, Standard Recommended Practice—Operational Procedures—Inspection and Quality Control of Duplicate Microforms of Documents and From COM.
ANSI/AIIM MS45-1990, January 22, 1990, Recommended Practice for Inspection of Stored Silver-Gelatin Microforms for Evidence of Deterioration.
ANSI/ISO 3334-1991, ANSI/AIIM MS51-1991, May 10, 1991, Micrographics—ISO Resolution Test Chart No. 2—Description and Use.
The following formats must be used when microfilming records:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
Agencies must ensure that the microforms capture all information contained on the source documents and that they can be used for the purposes the source documents served. Microform records must be labeled and organized to support easy retrieval and use. Agencies must:
(a) Arrange, describe, and index the filmed records to permit retrieval of any particular document or component of the records.
(b) Title each microform roll or fiche with a titling target or header. For fiche, place the titling information in the first frame if the information will not fit on the header. At a minimum, titling information must include:
(1) The title of the records;
(2) The number or identifier for each unit of microform;
(3) The security classification, if any; and
(4) The name of the agency and sub-organization, the inclusive dates, names, or other data identifying the records to be included on a unit of microform.
(c) Add an identification target showing the date of microfilming. When necessary to give the microform copy legal standing, the target must also identify the person who authorized the microfilming. Use ANSI/AIIM MS19-1993 for standards for identification targets.
(a) Agencies must apply the standards in this section when microfilming:
(1) Permanent paper records where the original paper record will be destroyed (only after authorization from NARA);
(2) Unscheduled paper records where the original paper record will be destroyed; and (only after authorization from NARA);
(3) Permanent and unscheduled original microform records (no paper originals) produced by automation, such as COM.
(b) Agencies must use polyester-based silver gelatin type film that conforms to ISO 18901:2001 for LE 500 film in all applications.
(c) Agencies must process microforms so that the residual thiosulfate ion concentration will not exceed 0.014 grams per square meter in accordance with ISO 18901:2001 and use the processing procedures in ANSI/AIIM MS1-1996 and ANSI/AIIM MS23-1998.
(d) Agencies must use the following standards for quality:
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i) Recommended visual diffuse transmission background densities for images of documents are as follows:
(ii) Recommended visual diffuse transmission densities for computer generated images are as follows:
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a) Agencies must inspect, or arrange for a contractor or NARA to inspect master microforms of permanent or unscheduled records following the inspection requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The microforms listed in paragraph (a) of this section must be inspected initially in accordance with ANSI/AIIM MS45-1990. All microforms must be inspected when they are two years old. After the initial two-year inspection, unless there is a catastrophic event, the microforms must be inspected as follows until they are transferred to NARA:
(1) For microfilm produced after 1990, inspect the microfilm every 5 years.
(2) For microfilm produced prior to 1990, inspect the microfilm every 2 years.
(c) To facilitate inspection, the agency must maintain an inventory that lists each microform series or publication by production date, producer, processor, format, and results of previous inspections.
(d) The inspection must include the following elements:
(1) An inspection for aging blemishes following ANSI/AIIM MS45-1990;
(2) A rereading of resolution targets;
(3) A re-measurement of density; and
(4) A certification of the environmental conditions under which the microforms are stored, as specified in § 1238.20(a).
(e) The agency must prepare an inspection report, and send a copy to NARA in accordance with § 1238.28(c). The inspection report must contain:
(1) A summary of the inspection findings, including:
(i) A list of batches by year that includes the identification numbers of microfilm rolls and microfiche in each batch;
(ii) The quantity of microforms inspected;
(iii) An assessment of the overall condition of the microforms;
(iv) A summary of any defects discovered, e.g., redox blemishes or base deformation; and
(v) A summary of corrective actions taken.
(2) A detailed inspection log created during the inspection that contains the following information:
(i) A complete description of all records inspected (title; roll or fiche number or other unique identifier for each unit of film inspected; security classification, if any; and inclusive dates, names, or other data identifying the records on the unit of film);
(ii) The date of inspection;
(iii) The elements of inspection (see paragraph (d) of this section);
(iv) Any defects uncovered; and
(v) The corrective action taken.
(f) If an inspection finds that a master microform is deteriorating, the agency must make a silver duplicate in accordance with § 1238.14 to replace the deteriorating master. The duplicate microform must meet inspection requirements (see § 1238.22) before it may be transferred to a record center or NARA.
(g) Inspections must be conducted in environmentally controlled areas in accordance with ANSI/AIIM MS45-1990.
NARA recommends, but does not require, that agencies use the inspection procedures described in § 1238.22(a).
(a) Agencies must not use the silver gelatin master microform or duplicate silver gelatin microform of permanent or unscheduled records created in accordance with § 1238.14 of this part for reference purposes. Agencies must ensure that the master microform remains clean and undamaged during the process of making a duplicating master.
(b) Agencies must use duplicates for:
(1) Reference;
(2) Further duplication on a recurring basis;
(3) Large-scale duplication; and
(4) Distribution of records on microform.
(c) Agencies retaining the original record in accordance with an approved records disposition schedule may apply agency standards for the use of microform records.
Agencies must:
(a) Follow the procedures in part 1232 of this chapter and the additional requirements in this section.
(b) Package non-silver copies separately from the silver gelatin original or silver duplicate microform copy and clearly label them as non-silver copies.
(c) Include the following information on the transmittal (SF 135 for NARA Federal Records Centers), or in an attachment to the transmittal. For records sent to an agency records center or commercial records storage facility, submit this information to NARA as part of the documentation required by § 1232.14 of this chapter:
(1) Name of the agency and program component;
(2) The title of the records and the media and format used;
(3) The number or identifier for each unit of microform;
(4) The security classification, if any;
(5) The inclusive dates, names, or other data identifying the records to be included on a unit of microform;
(6) Finding aids that are not contained in the microform; and
(7) The inspection log forms and inspection reports required by § 1238.22(e).
(d) Agencies may transfer permanent microform records to a records storage facility meeting the storage requirements in § 1232.14(a) (see § 1233.10 of this chapter for NARA Federal Records Centers) only after the first inspection or with certification that the microforms will be inspected by the agency, a contractor, or a NARA Federal Records Center (on a reimbursable basis) when the microforms become 2 years old.
Agencies must:
(a) Follow the procedures in part 1235 of this chapter and the additional requirements in this section.
(b) If the records are not in a NARA Federal Records Center, submit the information specified in § 1232.14(c).
(c) Transfer the silver gelatin original (or duplicate silver gelatin microform created in accordance with § 1238.14) plus one microform copy.
(d) Ensure that the inspections of the microforms are up to date. NARA will not accession permanent microform records until the first inspection has been performed (when the microforms are 2 years old).
(e) Package non-silver copies separately from the silver gelatin original or silver duplicate microform copy, and clearly label them as non-silver copies.
(a)
(1) Agencies that comply with the standards in § 1238.14 must include on the SF 115 the following certification: “This certifies that the records described on this form were (or will be) microfilmed in accordance with the standards set forth in 36 CFR part 1238.”
(2) Agencies using microfilming methods, materials, and procedures that do not meet the standards in § 1238.14(a) must include on the SF 115 a description of the system and standards used.
(3) When an agency intends to retain the silver original microforms of permanent records and destroy the original records, the agency must certify in writing on the SF 115 that the microform will be stored in compliance with the standards of § 1238.20 and inspected as required by § 1238.22.
(b)
44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
NARA's statutory authorities include assisting agencies in carrying out their records management responsibilities and, when necessary, inspecting agency programs and reporting to Congress on those inspections. Part 1239 identifies the types of records management guidance and program assistance NARA provides to agencies under its 44 U.S.C. chapter 29 mandate; the conditions under which NARA will invoke its inspection authority, also under chapter 29; and the requirements for agencies to cooperate fully in such inspections.
The authorities for this part are 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(a) See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in Part 1239.
(b) As used in Part 1239—
(1) Have a direct and high impact on legal rights or government accountability;
(2) Are the subject of high profile litigation, Congressional attention, or widespread media coverage;
(3) Have high research potential; or
(4) Are permanent records with a large volume, regardless of format.
These regulations conform to guidance provided in ISO 15489-1:2001. Paragraphs 7.1, Principles of records management programmes, and 10, Monitoring and auditing, apply to this part.
(a) NARA publishes handbooks, conducts workshops and other training sessions, and furnishes information and guidance to Federal agencies about the creation of records, their maintenance and use, and their disposition. NARA also may conduct a targeted assistance project in cooperation with an agency to address a serious records management issue in the agency.
(b) Information on NARA handbooks and guidance is available at
(c) Information on NARA training is available at
Agencies in the Washington, DC, area desiring information or assistance related to any of the areas covered by subchapter B may contact the NARA Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001. Agency field organizations may contact the appropriate NARA Regional Administrator regarding records management assistance, including for records in or scheduled for transfer to the records center or the archival operations within the region.
NARA may undertake an inspection when an agency fails to address specific records management problems involving high risk to significant records. Problems may be identified through a risk assessment or through other means, such as reports in the media, Congressional inquiries, allegations of unauthorized destruction, reports issued by the GAO or an agency's Inspector General, or observations by NARA staff members. Inspections will be undertaken when other NARA program assistance efforts (see § 1239.10) have failed to mitigate situations where there is a high risk of loss of significant records, or when NARA agrees to a request from the agency head that NARA conduct an inspection to address specific significant records management issues in the agency.
(a) Once NARA identifies the need to conduct an agency inspection, the Archivist of the United States sends a letter to the head of the agency. If the agency being inspected is a component of a cabinet department, the letter will be addressed to the head of the component, with a copy sent to the head of the department. NARA will also send copies to the agency's records officer. The letter will include:
(1) Notification that NARA intends to conduct an inspection, the records that will be inspected, and the issues to be addressed;
(2) A beginning date for the inspection that is no more than 30 days after the date of the letter; and
(3) A request that the agency appoint a point of contact who will assist NARA in conducting the inspection.
(b) If the agency does not respond to NARA's notification letter, NARA will use its statutory authority under 44 U.S.C. 2904(c)(8) to report the matter to the agency's congressional oversight committee and to the Office of Management and Budget.
(a) The NARA inspection team leader will coordinate with the agency point of contact to arrange an initial meeting with the agency. The initial meeting will address such matters as the parameters of the inspection, any surveys or other inspection instruments, the offices to be visited, and the timing of site visits.
(b) After the inspection is complete, NARA will prepare a draft inspection report and transmit it to the agency within 45 calendar days of the last site visit. The report will include:
(1) An executive summary;
(2) Background and purpose of inspection;
(3) Inspection methodology, including offices visited;
(4) Findings;
(5) Corrective actions needed and other recommendations; and
(6) Any necessary appendixes, such as summaries of each site visit or the inspection instrument.
(c) The draft report is sent to the agency for review, with a response deadline of 45 days.
(d) NARA will incorporate any necessary corrections or revisions in the final report and issue the report to the head of the agency within 45 days.
The agency must submit a plan of corrective action that specifies how the agency will address each inspection report recommendation, including a timeline for completion, and proposed progress reporting dates. The agency must submit the plan of corrective action to NARA within 60 days of transmission of the final report. NARA may take up to 60 days to review and comment on the plan. Once the plan is agreed upon by both sides, agencies must submit progress reports to NARA until all actions are completed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
This document moves the effective date of the revocation of certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions with insufficient data for reassessment as set forth in the
In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421):
1. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for the following amendments to § 180.910: 2.a., c., i. through k., m. through o., s., t., w. through aa., and cc.
2. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for the following amendments to § 180.920: 3.a., b., e. through k., m. through p., s., y., z., bb., cc., ff., gg., ii., ll. through nn., and ss.
3. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for the following amendments to § 180.930: 4.b., c., d., f., l., n., o., s. through w., cc., and ee. through jj.
4. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for the following amendments to § 180.940: 5.a.i., ii., and 5.c.i., ii., iv., vii., and viii.
Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 3, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0230. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at
Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 306-0404; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
In a final rule published in the
EPA has received communications from pesticide registrants and inert ingredient manufacturers expressing interest in supporting certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions that were revoked in the final rule of August 9, 2006. EPA developed voluntary guidance describing how interested parties could support these revoked tolerance exemptions, including consultations with the Agency about how they can demonstrate support, identifying test materials, and providing evidence that a laboratory has been hired to conduct the study. The voluntary guidance document, entitled “Guidance for Supporting the Inert Ingredients Subject to the Revocation Notice of August 9, 2006”, is available on EPA’s Web site at
In the interest of keeping the stakeholders informed about activities that may affect these revoked tolerance exemptions, EPA published the support status of each of the revoked tolerance exemptions in the
EPA has received requests for an extension of the revocation date from pesticide registrants and inert ingredient manufacturers who have demonstrated their intent to support certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions. For each of these supported tolerance exemptions, EPA has received data development plans and schedules with all data projected to be submitted by January 2009. EPA has determined that these parties have shown a good-faith effort to develop studies in a timely manner and have followed EPA’s guidance (see guidance document) describing how interested parties can support the revoked tolerance exemptions. EPA recognizes that repeat-dose studies may take about a year to conduct, and this does not include any preliminary studies that often must be completed beforehand (e.g., range finding). EPA will then analyze the submitted data and develop risk assessments prior to making a safety finding and reinstatement determination. EPA, therefore, concludes that additional time is necessary for study generation and the development of EPA’s risk assessments, and that the effective date of the revocation of the supported tolerance exemptions should be moved by one year to August 9, 2009.
In addition, two other revoked tolerance exemptions received an acceptable demonstration of support and the effective date of the revocation is now August 9, 2009. In the
It is important to note that this action does not move the effective date of those tolerance exemptions revoked in the
A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under FFDCA section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under FFDCA, but also must be registered under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136
The amendatory designations listed in this unit are reprinted from the final rule published in the
a. α-Alkyl (C
c. α-Alkyl (C
i. Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles.
j. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), average molecular weight (in amu) of 600.
k. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) sulfate, sodium salt; the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-4 moles.
m. α-(
n. α-(
o. Polyglyceryl phthalate ester of coconut oil fatty acids.
s. Sodium diisobutylnaphthalenesulfonate.
t. Sodium dodecylphenoxybenzenedisulfonate.
w. Sodium monoalkyl and dialkyl (C
x. Sodium mono- and dimethylnaphthalenesulfonates, molecular weight (in amu) 245-260.
y. Sodium mono-, di-, and tributyl naphthalenesulfonates.
z. Sodium mono-, di-, and triisopropyl naphthalenesulfonate.
aa. Sodium
cc. α-[
a. α-Alkyl (C
b. α-Alkyl (C
e. α-Alkyl(C
f. α-Alkyl (C
g. α-Alkyl (C
h. α-Alkyl (C
i. α-Alkyl (C
j.
k. Amine salts of alkyl (C
m.
n.
o.
p.
s. α-(Di-
y. Linoleic diethanolamide (CAS Reg. No. 56863-02-6).
z. Methyl bis(2-hydroxyethyl)alkyl ammonium chloride, where the carbon chain (C
bb. Methylnaphthalenesulfonic acid—formaldehyde condensate, sodium salt.
cc. Methyl poly(oxyethylene) alkyl ammonium chloride, where the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-15 moles and the alkyl group (C
ff. Naphthalenesulfonic acid-formaldehyde condensate, ammonium and sodium salts.
gg. Partial sodium salt of
ii. Primary
ll. Sodium 1,4-dihexyl sulfosuccinate.
mm. Sodium 1,4-diisobutyl sulfosuccinate.
nn. Sodium 1,4-dipentyl sulfosuccinate.
ss.
b. α-Alkyl (C
c. α-Alkyl (C
d. α-Alkyl (C
f. Amine salts of alkyl (C
l. Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles.
n. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), average molecular weight (in amu) of 600.
o. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), sulfate, sodium salt; the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-4 moles.
s. Naphthalenesulfonic acid and its sodium salt.
t. α-(
u. α-(
v. α-(
w. Polyglyceryl phthalate esters of coconut oil fatty acids.
cc. Sodium diisobutylnaphthalenesulfonate.
ee. Sodium isopropylnaphthalenesulfonate.
ff. Sodium monoalkyl and diakyl (C
gg. Sodium mono- and dimethylnaphthalenesulfonate, molecular weight (in amu) 245-260.
hh. Sodium mono-, di-, and tributylnaphthalenesulfonates.
ii. Sodium
jj. α-[
i. α-Alkyl(C
ii. α-Alkyl(C
i. α-Alkyl(C
ii. α-Alkyl(C
iv. α-Alkyl(C
vii. Naphthalene sulfonic acid sodium salt, and its methyl, dimethyl and trimethyl derivatives.
viii. Naphthalene sulfonic acid sodium salt, and its methyl, dimethyl and trimethyl derivatives alkylated at 3% by weight with C
This rule changes the effective date of the revocation of certain tolerance exemptions under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted tolerance exemption actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is providing the status of inert ingredient tolerance exemptions revoked in the
Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 306-0404; fax number: (703) 605-0781; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In a final rule published in the
In the
Elsewhere in this issue of the
The following provides the revocation status of each of the inert ingredient tolerance exemptions revoked because of insufficient data. The tolerance exemptions are presented below in the order they appeared in the final rule published in the
Two other revoked tolerance exemptions received an acceptable demonstration of support and the effective date of the revocation is now August 9, 2009. In the
1. Section 180.910: “α-Alkyl(C
2. Section 180.930: “α-Alkyl (C
It is important to note that EPA has not received indications of intent to support many of the inert ingredient
At this time, EPA is no longer accepting or processing applications for registrations for food-use products containing a tolerance exemption that expires on August 9, 2008 unless accompanied by a petition for a new tolerance or exemption under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2), together with all necessary supporting data. All commodities containing residues of these revoked inert ingredients on food are adulterated under FFDCA 408 if the residues are the result of applications of pesticide products made after August 9, 2008. Registrants who submitted a registration application for a food-use formulation containing an inert ingredient with an expiring tolerance exemption may submit a new application for registration with only those inert ingredients that are approved for the label’s use sites. If the registration application is subject to, including registration applications submitted under PRIA 2 that include a petition for a new or amended food-use inert ingredient, the following Web site provides useful information:
a. α-Alkyl (C
b. α-(
c. α-Alkyl (C
d. α-(
e. α-(
f. α-(
g. Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, amine salts. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
h. α-(
i. Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
j. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), average molecular weight (in amu) of 600. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
k. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) sulfate, sodium salt; the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-4 moles. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
l. Manganous oxide. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
m. α-(
n. α-(
o. Polyglyceryl phthalate ester of coconut oil fatty acids. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
p. Poly(methylene-
q. Poly(methylene-
r. Secondary alkyl (C
s. Sodium diisobutylnaphthalenesulfonate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
t. Sodium dodecylphenoxybenzenedisulfonate.
u. Sodium isopropylisohexylnaphthalenesulfonate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
v. Sodium lauryl glyceryl ether sulfonate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
w. Sodium monoalkyl and dialkyl (C
x. Sodium mono- and dimethylnaphthalenesulfonates, molecular weight (in amu) 245-260. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
y. Sodium mono-, di-, and tributyl naphthalenesulfonates. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
z. Sodium mono-, di-, and triisopropyl naphthalenesulfonate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
aa. Sodium
bb. Sodium sulfite. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008. The tolerance exemption under § 180.910 is revoked. Please note that EPA is currently evaluating a petition for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for a limited use of sodium sulfite as an inert ingredient. See the notice of filing published in the
cc. α-[
dd. α-[
ee. Tridecylpoly(oxyethylene) acetate, sodium salt; where the ethylene oxide content averages 6-7 moles. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
In the final rule published in the
“α-Alkyl(C
a. α-Alkyl (C
b. α-Alkyl (C
c. α-Alkyl (C
d. α-Alkyl(C
e. α-Alkyl(C
f. α-Alkyl (C
g. α-Alkyl (C
h. α-Alkyl (C
i. α-Alkyl (C
j.
k. Amine salts of alkyl (C
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q. Butoxytriethylene glycol phosphate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
r. Cyclohexanol. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
s. α-(Di-
t. Disodium 4-isodecyl sulfosuccinate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
u. Dodecylphenol. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
v. α-Dodecylphenol-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene/oxypropylene) hetero polymer where ethylene oxide content is 11-13 moles and oxypropylene content is 14-16 moles, molecular weight (in amu) averages 600 to 965. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
w. Isopropylbenzenesulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
x. (3-Lauramidopropyl) trimethylammonium methyl sulfate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
y. Linoleic diethanolamide (CAS Reg. No. 56863-02-6). (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
z. Methyl bis(2-hydroxyethyl)alkyl ammonium chloride, where the carbon chain (C
aa. α,α′-[Methylenebis]-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-
bb. Methylnaphthalenesulfonic acid—formaldehyde condensate, sodium salt. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
cc. Methyl poly(oxyethylene) alkyl ammonium chloride, where the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-15 moles and the alkyl group (C
dd. Methyl violet 2B. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
ee. Morpholine salt of dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
ff. Naphthalenesulfonic acid-formaldehyde condensate, ammonium and sodium salts. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
gg. Partial sodium salt of
hh. Poly(methylene-
ii. Primary
jj. Sodium butyl naphthalenesulfonate. (Administrative revocation is complete; revoked August 9, 2006)
kk. Sodium 1,4-dicyclohexyl sulfosuccinate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
ll. Sodium 1,4-dihexyl sulfosuccinate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
mm. Sodium 1,4-diisobutyl sulfosuccinate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
nn. Sodium 1,4-dipentyl sulfosuccinate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
oo. Sodium 1,4-ditridecyl sulfosuccinate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
pp. Sodium mono- and dimethyl naphthalenesulfonate; molecular weight (in amu) 245-260. (Administrative revocation is complete; revoked August 9, 2006)
qq. Sulfosuccinic acid ester with
rr. Tall oil diesters with polypropylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 68648-12-4). (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
ss.
tt. α-[
a. α-Alkyl (C
b. α-Alkyl (C
c. α-Alkyl (C
d. α-Alkyl (C
e. α-(
f. Amine salts of alkyl (C
g. α-(
h. α-(
i. α-(
j. Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, amine salts. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
k. α-(
l. Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
m. Ethyl vinyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 24937-78-8). (Administrative revocation is complete; revoked August 9, 2006)
n. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), average molecular weight (in amu) of 600. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
o. α-Lauryl-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), sulfate, sodium salt; the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-4 moles. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
p. Manganous oxide. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
q. α-(Methylene (4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-
r. Mono-, di-, and trimethylnaphthalenesulfonic acids-formaldehyde condensates, sodium salts. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
s. Naphthalenesulfonic acid and its sodium salt. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
t. α-(
u. α-(
v. α-(
w. Polyglyceryl phthalate esters of coconut oil fatty acids. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
x. Poly(methylene-
y. Poly(methylene-
z. Poly(methylene-
aa. Secondary alkyl (C
bb. Sodium butylnaphthalenesulfonate. (Administrative revocation is complete; revoked August 9, 2006)
cc. Sodium diisobutylnaphthalenesulfonate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
dd. Sodium isopropylisohexylnaphthalenesulfonate. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
ee. Sodium isopropylnaphthalenesulfonate. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
ff. Sodium monoalkyl and diakyl (C
gg. Sodium mono- and dimethylnaphthalenesulfonate, molecular weight (in amu) 245-260. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
hh. Sodium mono-, di-, and tributylnaphthalenesulfonates. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
ii. Sodium
jj. α-[
kk. α-[
ll. Tridecylpoly(oxyethylene) acetate sodiums salt; where the ethylene oxide content averages 6-7 moles. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
In the final rule published in the
“α-Alkyl (C
Under paragraph (a):
i. α-Alkyl(C
ii. α-Alkyl(C
Under paragraph (b):
i. α-Lauroyl-ω-hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) with an average of 8-9 moles ethylene oxide, average molecular weight (in amu), 400. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
ii. Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with (1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis [propanol] (4:1). (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
Under paragraph (c):
i. α-Alkyl(C
ii. α-Alkyl(C
iii. α-Alkyl(C
iv. α-Alkyl(C
v. α-Lauroyl-ω-hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) with an average of 8-9 moles ethylene oxide, average molecular weight (in amu), 400. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
vi. Naphthalene sulfonic acid, sodium salt. (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
vii. Naphthalene sulfonic acid sodium salt, and its methyl, dimethyl and trimethyl derivatives. (Demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2009)
viii. Naphthalene sulfonic acid sodium salt, and its methyl, dimethyl and trimethyl derivatives alkylated at 3% by weight with C
ix. Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with (1,2-ethanediyldinitrilo)tetrakis [propanol] (4:1). (No demonstration of intent to support; revocation effective August 9, 2008)
Environmental protection.