Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Secret Service
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-9, -9A, -11, -15, -17, and -17R turbofan engines. This AD requires overhauling fan blade leading edges at the first shop visit after 4,000 cycles-in-service (CIS) since the last total fan blade overhaul was performed. This AD results from reports of failed fan blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent high-cycle fatigue cracking at the blade root, which could result in uncontained failures of first stage fan blades and damage to the airplane.
This AD becomes effective November 12, 2010.
You can get the service information identified in this AD from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 565-7700; fax (860) 565-1605.
The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to PW JT8D-9, -9A, -11, -15, -17, and -17R turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Two commenters, Delta Airlines, Inc. and the National Transportation Safety Board, request that we extend the proposed AD comment period. The extension would allow time to determine the root cause of a fan blade failure on a Delta DC-9 airplane, occurring on June 14, 2010.
We do not agree. Extending the comment period would delay the rulemaking process. The root cause investigation can continue after the AD is issued. We did not change the AD.
Delta Airlines, Inc. requests clarification of the shop visit definition in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Specifically, clarify whether a gearbox removal or gearbox change would fit into the shop visit definition. Also, that we clarify that a nose cowl removal or a thrust reverser removal not be included in the shop visit definition. These actions involve components that mate to engine flanges.
We partially agree. We revised the definition of shop visit in the AD to include a clarification of “lettered flanges” after “pairs of major mating engine flanges.” The procedures referenced by the commenter are shop visits according to the definition in paragraph (i) of the AD. Since the nose cowl and thrust reverser are not engine components, they would involve the separation of an engine flange with a non-engine flange. A gearbox removal would not involve a lettered flange. You can find further information on what is a lettered flange in the engine manual.
Since we issued the proposed AD, we discovered that paragraphs (f) and (g) require clarification. We clarified those paragraphs in the AD, to state that the cycles-in-service apply to the fan blades.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We estimate that this AD will affect 1,527 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 63 work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. No additional parts are required. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $8,177,085.
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
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 12, 2010.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-9, -9A, -11, -15, -17, and -17R turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 727 series, Boeing 737-200 series and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 airplanes.
(d) This AD results from reports of failed fan blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent high-cycle fatigue cracking at the blade root, which could result in uncontained failures of first stage fan blades and damage to the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) For engines where the cycles-in-service (CIS) since the last overhaul of the fan blades are known, overhaul the total set of stage 1 fan blades at the first shop visit after 4,000 CIS since the last total stage 1 fan blade overhaul, or the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Guidance on performing a fan blade overhaul can be found in Pratt & Whitney JT8D Maintenance Advisory Notice No. MAN-JT8D-2-06, and the Engine Manual Chapter/Section 72-33-21, Inspection 00.
(g) For engines where the CIS since the last overhaul of the fan blades are unknown, overhaul the total set of stage 1 fan blades at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD. Guidance on performing a fan blade overhaul can be found in Pratt & Whitney JT8D Maintenance Advisory Notice No. MAN-JT8D-2-06, and the Engine Manual Chapter/Section 72-33-21, Inspection 00.
(h) Thereafter, overhaul the total set of stage 1 fan blades at the first shop visit after 4,000 CIS since the last total stage 1 fan blade overhaul. Guidance on performing a fan blade overhaul can be found in Pratt & Whitney JT8D Maintenance Advisory Notice No. MAN-JT8D-2-06, and the Engine Manual Chapter/Section 72-33-21, Inspection 00.
(i) For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges (lettered flanges), except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transporting the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) Contact James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
(l) Pratt & Whitney JT8D Maintenance Advisory Notice No. MAN-JT8D-2-06, dated November 20, 2006, pertains to the subject of this AD. Contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 565-7700; fax (860) 565-1605, for a copy of this service information.
(m) None.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of Cape Fear River in Wilmington, NC in support of the Fireworks for the USS GRAVELY Commissioning Ceremony. This action is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public and spectators from the hazards posed by aerial fireworks displays. Entry into or movement within this safety zone during the enforcement period is prohibited without approval of the Captain of the Port.
This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. November 19, 2010.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0917 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or e-mail BOSN3 Joseph Edge, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 252-247-4525, e-mail
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On November 19, 2010, the USS GRAVELY Commissioning Committee will sponsor a fireworks display on the western shore of the Cape Fear River at Battleship Park. The fireworks debris fallout area will extend over the navigable waters of Cape Fear River. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, including accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted from transiting within fireworks launch and fallout area.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of Cape Fear River within an area bound by a line drawn from the following points: latitude 34°13′54″ N, longitude 077°57′06″ W; thence northeast to latitude 34°13′57″ N, longitude 077°57′05″ W; thence north to latitude 34°14′11″ N, longitude 077°57′07″ W; thence northwest to latitude 34°14′22″ N, longitude 077°57′19″ W; thence west to latitude 34°14′22″ N, longitude 077°57′06″ W; thence southeast to latitude 34°14′07″ N, longitude 077°57′00″ W; thence south to latitude 34°13′54″ N, longitude 077°56′58″ W; thence to the point of origin, located approximately 500 yards north of Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. This safety zone will be established in the vicinity of Wilmington, NC from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 19, 2010. In the interest of public safety, general navigation within the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or his or her representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access to a small segment of the Cape Fear River, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) the safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Cape Fear River from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 19, 2010. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) This rule will be enforced for only one hour on November 19, 2010; (2) Vessel traffic will be able to navigate safely around the safety zone without significant impact to their transit plans; and (3) Before the effective period begins, we will issue maritime advisories.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a safety zone for a fireworks display launch site and fallout area and is expected to have no impact on the water or environment. This zone is designed to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with aerial fireworks displays.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina can be reached through the Sector Duty Officer at Sector North Carolina in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina at telephone number (252) 247-4570.
(4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Letter to Governor Regarding Completeness and Stopping of Sanctions Clock.
EPA is now giving notice of an action that EPA has already taken to find a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision complete and stop the sanctions clocks associated with the Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0604. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joel Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic mail at
Effective April 5, 2005, the Atlanta Area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM
On July 6, 2010, Georgia submitted all components for the nonattainment area submittals for the Atlanta Area. EPA has done a completeness review, in accordance with Section 2.0 “Criteria” of Appendix V of 40 CFR part 51—Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions, to ensure that the State has submitted all of the required information for the SIP submission.
As explained in the letter sent by EPA to the Governor of Georgia, on September 3, 2010, EPA has determined that the State has corrected the deficiency identified in EPA's promulgated finding of failure to submit the required nonattainment area SIP submittals for the Atlanta Area. Specifically, EPA has determined that Georgia has submitted complete SIP submittals for the Atlanta Area to meet the CAA requirement for a nonattainment area under the 1997 PM
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is amending the pesticide container and containment regulations to provide an 8-month extension of the labeling compliance date from December 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011. This change is being made to provide additional time for pesticide registrants to revise labels to bring them into compliance with the regulations and for EPA and states to review and approve the revised labels.
This final rule is effective December 7, 2010.
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Nancy Fitz, Field and External Affairs Division (FEAD) (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7385; fax number: (703) 308-2962; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a pesticide formulator. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Pesticide formulators (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. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
On August 16, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule titled “Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment” (71 FR 47330) (container and containment rule), establishing 40 CFR part 165 and amending 40 CFR part 156. The container and containment rule established regulations for the safe storage and disposal of pesticides to reduce the likelihood of unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. The container and containment regulations include requirements for pesticide container design; procedures, standards, and label language to facilitate removal of pesticides from containers prior to their being reused, recycled, or discarded; and requirements for containment of stationary pesticide containers and procedures for container refilling operations. The 2006 rule required that all pesticide products distributed or sold by a registrant as of August 16, 2009, bear labels that comply with the rule's label language requirements (40 CFR 156.159). On October 29, 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule that made various amendments to the container and containment rule, including extending the original labeling compliance date from August 16, 2009 to August 16, 2010.
On June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33705), EPA promulgated a final rule that extended the labeling compliance date from August 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010 to avoid the temporary removal of a significant number of pesticides from the market while a 1-year extension proposal moves through the rulemaking process and while pesticide registrants work to update pesticide labels to comply with the labeling requirements in the container and containment regulations and EPA and states work to review and approve those revised labels.
Also on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33744), EPA published a proposed rule to provide a 1-year extension of the labeling compliance date from August 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011 to address concerns raised by stakeholders and as a result of further Agency consideration. The public comment period for this proposed rule closed on July 15, 2010. EPA received five comments from trade associations and a pesticide registrant. Four of the comments supported the proposed 1-year extension while one comment, submitted by a trade association, supported a longer extension of 18 months to 2 years.
These final regulations are issued pursuant to the authority given the Administrator of EPA in sections 2 through 34 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y. Sections 19(e) and (f) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a(e) and (f), grant EPA broad authority to establish standards and procedures to assure the safe use, reuse, storage, and disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA section 19(e) requires EPA to promulgate regulations for the design of pesticide containers that will promote the safe storage and disposal of pesticides. FIFRA section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations prescribing procedures and standards for the removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal. FIFRA section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a), authorizes EPA to issue regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.
EPA is amending the pesticide container and containment regulations to provide an 8-month extension of the labeling compliance date (40 CFR 156.159) from December 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011. This change is being made to provide additional time for pesticide registrants to revise labels to bring them into compliance with the regulations and for EPA and states to review and approve the revised labels.
As discussed in the June 15, 2010 proposed rule, EPA concluded that there was not sufficient time to change all labels by August 2010 because of several factors, including:
1. More antimicrobial products labels than expected require alterative rinsing instructions, so the label amendments cannot be made by notification and require more in depth reviews by EPA;
2. EPA's position on the appropriate container-related statements (particularly rinsing and treatment of rinsate) for certain pesticides has changed over time as a result of experience with product-by-product label reviews; and
3. The length of time for states to review and approve labels is understood to be increasing due to the furlough days for staff in some states and staffing reductions due to budget shortfalls in others.
Since registrants can decide which registered products they wish to market at any given time, the Agency does not have a precise count of the total number of label changes that ultimately will be submitted to EPA for review. However, based upon a review of Agency actions through May 2010 and discussions with registrants, EPA estimates that the majority of label changes have already been submitted and approved. On the other hand, EPA estimates that there were at least 1,000, and potentially several thousand, remaining pesticide product labels that EPA still needed to review. Even taking into account the applications that have already been submitted, there is not enough time for the necessary label changes to be approved by EPA, then submitted to and approved by the states, printed, and
Because EPA contributed to the large number of outstanding label changes, EPA is extending the compliance date in 40 CFR 156.159 by a total of 1 year, so that pesticide products released for shipment by a registrant after August 16, 2011 would have to bear a label that complies with the container requirements. EPA continues to believe that one additional year will provide enough time for EPA and the states to review the label changes and for registrants to incorporate the changes into their labels, provided that the outstanding applications were submitted in a timely fashion. Beginning in April 2010 and repeated in the June 15, 2010
EPA disagrees with the commenter who argued for an 18-month to 2-year extension. This commenter said a longer extension is necessary to avoid an interruption in the supply of antimicrobial products because of “the need for these products for public health and the industrial economy, the need for particularized language for antimicrobial pesticides necessitating amendment instead of notification, the potential for multiple review cycles, the significant workload facing the EPA, and state pesticide registration agencies.”
Based on an evaluation of the resources and time it would take for EPA to undertake a concerted effort to complete the review of these remaining labels and discussions with State regulatory agencies who estimated a range of 3 to 6 months for them to review and approve the label revisions, EPA continues to believe that label changes that were submitted by August 16, 2010 will be reviewed by EPA and states in sufficient time to allow the registrants to make the necessary changes in their labels in time to comply with the revised compliance date of August 16, 2011. The number of pesticide product labels submitted by the August 16, 2010 deadline is comparable to the average number of label changes that have been reviewed, approved and changed over each of the past few years. Therefore, EPA believes that EPA, states and registrants can readily accomplish the steps necessary in order for the affected products to be in compliance with the pesticide container and containment regulations by August 16, 2011.
EPA believes that a longer extension is unjustified because registrants have had a reasonable amount of time to prepare and submit their label modification requests. The rule was published over 4 years ago and EPA has already extended the deadline by 1 year and 4 months. The prior extension was based on EPA's concern that without an extension, the prior compliance date of August 16, 2010 could temporarily remove from the market a significant number of pesticides important to the protection of public health and the nation's food supply, without comparable benefits to public health or the environment. Extending the compliance date to August 2011 was expected to allow time for the labels of the vast majority of these products to work through the review and revision process so there should not be a significant number of non-compliant products by August 16, 2011. While the number of non-compliant products is still significant, the number of applications submitted and processed to date gives EPA confidence that users will have adequate access to compliant products by August 16, 2011.
EPA continues to believe that the pesticide container labeling requirements serve important roles in the management of pesticide risks, as explained in the August 16, 2006, pesticide container and containment final rule (71 FR 47330). Absent compelling competing public interests, EPA believes that it is essential for the labels to clearly identify containers as nonrefillable containers or refillable containers by August 16, 2011 when compliance is required with the refillable container and repackaging requirements. Having the label identify a container as a refillable container is essential to the successful implementation of the refillable container and repackaging regulations.
This action only amends an existing regulation to extend the current compliance date, it does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements. As such, this action is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
State, local, and tribal governments are rarely pesticide applicants or registrants, so this final rule is not expected to affect these governments. Accordingly, pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), EPA has determined that this action is not subject to the requirements in sections 202 and 205 because it does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector in any one year. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA has determined that this final rule does not have “federalism implications” as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Since this action is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
This action does not involve technical standards that would require the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272).
This action does not have an adverse impact on the environmental and health conditions in low-income and minority communities. Therefore, this action does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898, entitled
In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a) and (d), the Agency submitted a draft of this final rule to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the United States Senate, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP and the Secretary of Agriculture waived review of this final rule.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Labeling, Pesticides and pests.
7 U.S.C. 136 through 136y.
Any pesticide product released for shipment by a registrant after August 16, 2011 must bear a label that complies with §§ 156.10(d)(7), 156.10(f), 156.10(i)(2)(ix), 156.140, 156.144, 156.146 and 156.156.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS amends the framework regulations specifying procedures for implementing fishing capacity reduction programs (reduction programs) in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management (Magnuson-Stevens) Reauthorization Act of 2007. A reduction program pays harvesters in a fishery that has more vessels than capacity either to surrender their fishing permits including relevant fishing histories for that fishery, or surrender all their fishing permits and cancel their fishing vessels' fishing endorsements by permanently withdrawing the vessel from all fisheries. The cost of the program can be paid by post-reduction harvesters, taxpayers, or others. The intent of a program is to decrease the number of harvesters in the fishery, increase the economic efficiency of harvesting, and facilitate the conservation and management of fishery resources in each fishery in which NMFS conducts a reduction program.
This final rule is effective November 8, 2010.
Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action may be obtained from Michael A. Sturtevant, Financial Services Division, NMFS-MB5, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Send comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule to Michael A. Sturtevant at the above address and also to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (
Michael A. Sturtevant at 301-713-2390 or
This
Many U.S. fisheries have excess fishing capacity. Excess fishing capacity decreases earnings, complicates management, and imperils conservation. To provide for fishing capacity reduction programs, in 1996 Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by adding section 312(b)-(e) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)-(e)). The framework regulations to conduct these reduction programs were published as an interim final rule on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31430) and codified as subpart L to 50 CFR part 600. To finance reduction costs, Congress amended Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (Title XI), by adding new sections 1111 and 1112. The Title XI provisions involving
This action amends subpart L to 50 CFR part 600 to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-479) amendments for requesting and conducting fishing capacity reduction programs.
The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act requires several modifications to the framework regulations.
First, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act contained a provision that states that, in addition to the appropriate fishery management Council or Governor of a State, a majority of permit holders in the fishery may request a buyback program. Such a program may be conducted if the Secretary determines that the program is necessary to prevent or end overfishing, rebuild stocks of fish, or achieve measurable and significant improvements in the conservation and management of the fishery. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the definition of “Requester” and the regulations outlining the process for submission requests to allow permit holders, if they constitute a majority, to request a buyback program.
Second, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act clarified that a permit holder relinquishes any future limited access system claims associated with the permit or vessel participating in a reduction program and that (if not scrapped) the vessel will be effectively prevented from fishing in Federal or state waters, or fishing on the high seas or in the waters of a foreign nation. The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act revised section 312(b)(2)(A) to recognize that the owner of a fishing vessel may be different from the permit holder. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the regulations to require that, along with surrendering the permit authorizing the participation of the vessel in the fishery, for permanent revocation, both the vessel owner and the permit holder, if different from the vessel owner, relinquish any claim associated with the vessel or permit that could qualify such owner or permit holder for any present or future limited access system permit in the fishery for which the program is established or in any other fishery.
Third, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act added Section 312(b)(5) regarding payment conditions stating that if a vessel is not scrapped, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) must certify that the vessel will not be used for fishing in the waters of a foreign nation or fishing on the high seas. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the regulations so that the Secretary must make such certification before making payment. Because each program is different, and would need to include fishery-specific information and requirements, NMFS is not proposing at this time specific details that must be included in the certification plans, but will provide the requirements for the certification process on a case-by-case basis for each reduction fishery program when the regulations for that program is published in the
Fourth, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act also changed the approval threshold for the capacity reduction referendum. The reauthorized Act now states that a fee system shall be considered approved if the referendum votes which are cast in favor of the proposed system constitute “at least a majority of the permit holders in the fishery, or 50 percent of the permitted allocation of the fishery, who participate in the fishery”. Previously, a referendum was approved with a two-thirds majority of the participating voters. As a result of this amendment, NOAA amends the referendum procedure accordingly.
On June 14, 2010, NMFS published proposed regulations in the
NMFS received four comments in response to the proposed rule. Three were from individuals and one from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). DOI reviewed the proposed rule and acknowledged that because it addresses the framework process it would not have any immediate effect on National Park Service fishery resources.
NMFS revises the following sections of the regulations of subpart L to 50 CFR part 600:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, determined that this rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-479), and other applicable laws.
The revisions to the framework regulations do not propose any major new programs. The framework modifications implemented by this rule impact only the process under which fishery capacity reduction programs are created and implemented, and would not directly implement changes to specific fisheries. Therefore, the rulemaking does not lend itself to quantitative or qualitative analysis. For example, the analysis of impacts on vessels, vessel revenues, port revenues, fish stock impacts, etc. are not possible in the absence of identifying specific fisheries and buyback program fishery components. Each individual program will be implemented through the rulemaking process in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus, each program will be individually evaluated and appropriately analyzed under NEPA at the appropriate time. This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6.
The Office of Management and Budget determined that this proposal is not significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared a Regulatory Impact Review which is available upon request (
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provides that if an agency determines that a rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, it may certify that finding to the Small Business Administration in lieu of preparing an analysis. Although one commenter expressed concern that the RFA considerations were insufficient and small entities would be adversely affected, NMFS disagrees. The framework modifications implemented by this rule impact only the process under which fishery capacity reduction programs are created and implemented, and would not directly implement changes to specific fisheries. Each program will be individually evaluated and analyzed at the appropriate time including its impact on small businesses. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule does not contain any new collection of information requirements subject to the PRA. The estimates of the public reporting burden that have been previously approved by OMB, under OMB Control No. 0648-0376 remain valid. Send comments regarding the collection of information requirements contained in this final rule, including the burden hour estimates, and suggestions for reducing the burdens to NMFS (
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fisheries, Fishing capacity reduction, Fishing permits, Fishing vessels, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) A Council, the Governor of a State under whose authority a proposed reduction fishery is subject, or a majority of permit holders in the fishery may request that NMFS conduct a program in that fishery. Each request shall be in writing. Each request shall satisfy the requirements of § 600.1003 or § 600.1005, as applicable, and enable NMFS to make the determinations required by § 600.1004 or § 600.1006, as applicable.
(c) The Secretary may not make a fishing capacity reduction program payment with respect to a reduction vessel that will not be scrapped unless the Secretary certifies that the vessel will not be used for fishing in the waters of the U.S., a foreign nation, or on the high seas.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Where the program also involves the withdrawal of reduction vessels from fishing:
(A) Title restrictions imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard on any reduction vessel that is Federally documented to forever prohibit and effectively prevent any future use of the reduction vessel for fishing:
(
(
(
(B) Scrapping of all reduction vessels involved in a fishing capacity reduction program, unless the reduction program vessel has been certified by the Secretary, and the requirements established under § 600.1002(c) are met. Where reduction vessel scrapping is involved and the reduction vessel's owner does not comply with the owner's obligation under the reduction contract to scrap the reduction vessel, the Secretary may take such measures as necessary to cause the reduction vessel's prompt scrapping. The scrapping will be at the reduction vessel owner's risk and expense. Upon completion of scrapping, NMFS will take such action as may be necessary to recover from the reduction vessel owner any cost, damages, or other expense NMFS incurred in the scrapping of the reduction vessel.
(a)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule: Extension of comment period.
On June 15, 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a proposed rule to establish security requirements for the use and transport of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The public comment period for this proposed rule was to have expired on October 13, 2010. The NRC received several requests to extend the comment period to January 18, 2011. Due to the size and complexity of the proposed rule and the associated draft implementation guidance, the NRC has decided to extend the comment period until January 18, 2011.
The comment period has been extended and now expires on January 18, 2011. 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.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0120 in the subject line of your comments. For instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see “Submitting Comments and Accessing Information” in the
Merri Horn, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-8126, e-mail:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
You can access publicly available documents related to this proposed rule using the following methods:
The NRC published a proposed rule that would place the security requirements for use of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material into a new Part 37 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Category 1 and Category 2 thresholds are based on the thresholds established for Category 1 and Category 2 in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. The NRC considers Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material to be risk-significant and, therefore, these materials warrant additional protection. The objective of the proposed rule is to ensure that effective security measures are in place for the protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material against the possibility of misuse of the radioactive material for malevolent purposes.
The proposed rule was published on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33902) and the public comment period was to have expired October 13, 2010. The NRC received several requests to extend the comment period to January 18, 2011. Due to the size and complexity of the proposed rule and the associated draft implementation guidance, the NRC has decided to extend the comment period until January 18, 2011.
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 would require installing new in-line fuses for the fuel level float switch and new in-line fuses for the pressure switch, as applicable, and changing the wiring. The proposed actions would affect the left and right wing forward spars, center wing forward spar, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank, as applicable. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 22, 2010.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5262; fax (562) 627-5210, e-mail:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
An investigation conducted by the airplane manufacturer has revealed that fuel level float switch wires located on the left and right wing forward spars, the center tank forward spar, and the forward and aft auxiliary fuel tanks, and pressure switch wires located on the
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing the in-line fuses of the fuel level float switch, in-line fuses of the pressure switch, and changing the wiring, as applicable, on the left and right wing forward spars, center wing forward spar, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank, as applicable. The service bulletin also describes procedures for changing certain wiring.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 275 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) We must receive comments by November 22, 2010.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-9-14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-32F (C-9A), DC-9-32F (C9-B), DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-41, and DC-9-51 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2010.
(d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
(e) This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
(f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Install new in-line fuses for the fuel level float switch and new in-line fuses for the pressure switch, as applicable; and change the wiring; on the left and right wing forward spars, center wing forward
(h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-217, dated December 1, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
(j) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: (562) 627-5262; fax: (562) 627-5210; e-mail:
(k) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; e-mail
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
This supplemental NPRM revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) applicable to Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers model 247F propeller assemblies with certain part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) blades. That proposed AD would require removing affected propeller blades from service. That proposed AD resulted from reports of blades with corrosion pits in the tulip area of the blades. This supplemental NPRM revises the proposed AD to remove certain propeller S/Ns from the applicability requirement, and to add additional propeller S/Ns to the applicability requirement. This proposed AD results from the manufacture's latest service information containing propeller S/Ns that were not specified in the proposed AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks from developing in the tulip area of the blade, which could result in separation of the blade and possible loss of airplane control.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 7, 2010.
You can get the service information identified in this AD from Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller Technical Team, One Hamilton Road, Mail Stop 1-3-AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; fax (860) 654-5107.
The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers model 247F propeller assemblies with certain P/N and S/N blades. We published the proposed AD in the
We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
On February 11, 2009, we proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to
Since we issued the proposed AD, Hamilton Sundstrand informed us that they incorrectly listed blade S/N FR2398 as S/N FR2389. They also informed us that the 247F propeller blades, P/N 817370-1, S/Ns FR2449 to FR2958 inclusive, FR20010710 to FR20010722 inclusive, and FR20010723RT to FR20020127RT inclusive, manufactured since January 1999, might also have damage to the corrosion protection on the blade tulips. Those blades also require complying with Service Bulletin (SB) 247F-61-54, Revision 1, dated January 12, 2004.
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We added blade S/Ns FR2398, FR2449 to FR2958 inclusive, FR20010710 to FR20010722 inclusive, and FR20010723RT to FR20020127RT inclusive to the applicability of the proposed AD.
We removed blade S/Ns FR2083, FR2178, FR2303, and FR2389 from the applicability of the proposed AD. Hamilton Sundstrand informed us that they have reworked those blades to SB 247F-61-54, Revision 1, dated January 12, 2004.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and the public interest require reopening the comment period for the NPRM with the changes described previously.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require removing certain propeller assemblies before December 31, 2010.
We estimate that this AD will affect 10 propellers installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 16 work-hours per propeller to perform the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $50 per propeller. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $14,100.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration 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 airworthiness directive:
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by December 7, 2010.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand model 247F series propellers with blades part number (P/N) 817370-1, serial numbers (S/Ns) FR2018, FR2103, FR2108, FR2109, FR2111, FR2123, FR2183, FR2187, FR2262, FR2276 through FR2279 inclusive, FR 2398, FR2449 to FR2958 inclusive, FR20010710 to FR20010722 inclusive, and FR20010723RT to FR20020127RT inclusive, installed. These propellers are installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-210 and ATR72-210E airplanes.
(d) This AD results from reports of blades with corrosion pits in the tulip area of the blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks from developing in the tulip area of the blade, which could result in separation of the blade and possible loss of airplane control.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Remove from service, blades P/N 817370-1, S/Ns FR2018, FR2103, FR2108, FR2109, FR2111, FR2123, FR2183, FR2187, FR2262, and FR2276 through FR2279, and FR2398 within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(g) Remove from service, blades P/N 817370-1, S/Ns FR2449 to FR2958 inclusive, FR20010710 to FR20010722 inclusive, and FR20010723RT to FR20020127RT inclusive, before December 31, 2010.
(h) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(i) Contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
(j) Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 247F-61-54, Revision 1, dated January 12, 2004, pertains to the subject of this AD. Contact Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller Technical Team, One Hamilton Road, Mail Stop 1-3-AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; fax (860) 654-5107, for a copy of this service information.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Proposed rule.
Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to improve and expand the risk management activities of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The proposed regulatory changes will update and enhance the Lender Insurance process through which the majority of FHA-insured mortgages are endorsed for insurance. Most significantly, the proposed rule would provide additional guidance on HUD's regulations implementing the statutory requirements regarding mortgagee indemnification to HUD of insurance claims in the case of fraud, misrepresentation, or noncompliance with applicable loan origination requirements. The proposed rule also provides that mortgagees must continually maintain the acceptable claim and default rate required for eligibility to initially be delegated Lender Insurance authority, in order to retain such authority. In addition, this proposed rule also provides that HUD will review Lender Insurance mortgagee performance on a continual basis. HUD also proposes to revise the methodology for determining acceptable claim and default rates, to more accurately reflect mortgagee performance, and to streamline the approval process for Lender Insurance mortgagees that have undergone a corporate restructuring. The Department has also taken the opportunity afforded by this proposed rule to make two technical corrections to the regulations and to solicit public comment on whether FHA mortgagees should be required to submit mortgage loan case binders to HUD electronically.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Mark Ross, Acting Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was established by Congress in 1934 to improve nationwide housing standards, to provide employment and stimulate industry, to improve conditions with respect to home mortgage financing, to prevent speculative excesses in new mortgage investment, and to eliminate the necessity for costly second mortgage financing. FHA-insured single family mortgages are originated and underwritten through the Direct Endorsement process. A majority of FHA-insured mortgages that are originated under the Direct Endorsement process are endorsed for insurance by mortgage lenders through a second process, the Lender Insurance process.
The Direct Endorsement and Lender Insurance processes are not separate programs; rather, they are the mechanisms that enable FHA-approved lenders to consider single family mortgage applications without first submitting paperwork to HUD. The Lender Insurance process is authorized under section 256 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-21). The HUD regulations that presently govern the Direct Endorsement and Lender
The Direct Endorsement process is described in § 203.5 and is available to mortgagees who meet the requirements set forth in § 203.3. Under Direct Endorsement, the mortgagee determines that the proposed mortgage is eligible for insurance under applicable regulations, and submits the required documents to FHA in accordance with § 203.255. The Direct Endorsement mortgagee's performance is subject to pre-endorsement and post-endorsement review by the Secretary.
Direct Endorsement mortgagees that meet the requirements of § 203.4 may be approved for Lender Insurance, as described in § 203.6. Under the Lender Insurance process, a mortgagee conducts its own pre-insurance review and insures the mortgage without a pre-endorsement review by HUD. In order to be eligible to participate in the FHA single family programs as a Lender Insurance mortgagee, an FHA mortgage lender must be an unconditionally approved Direct Endorsement mortgagee that is high performing—i.e., for at least 2 years prior to its application for Lender Insurance authority, the mortgagee must have had a claim and default record acceptable to HUD.
Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to improve and expand the risk management activities of FHA. The proposed regulatory changes will update and enhance the Lender Insurance process. Most significantly, the proposed rule would revise HUD's regulations implementing the statutory requirements regarding lender indemnification to HUD of insurance claims in the case of fraud, misrepresentation, or noncompliance with applicable loan origination requirements. The proposed rule will also provide that mortgagees, in order to retain their Lender Insurance authority, must continually maintain the acceptable claim and default rate required of them when they were initially delegated such authority. In addition, this proposed rule provides that HUD will review Lender Insurance mortgagee performance on a continual basis. HUD also proposes to revise the methodology for determining acceptable claim and default rates to more accurately reflect mortgagee performance, and to streamline the approval process for Lender Insurance mortgagees that have undergone a corporate restructuring. The Department has also taken the opportunity afforded by this proposed rule to make two technical corrections to the regulations.
The proposed regulatory changes are as follows:
1.
The section 256 statutory indemnification requirements are currently codified at § 203.255(f)(4). HUD proposes to create a new § 203.255(g) that would provide additional guidance on the statutory requirements of section 256.
As discussed, the section 256 indemnification requirements are applicable to claims paid in connection to a mortgage that was not “originated” in accordance with FHA requirements. For purposes of § 203.255(f), this proposed rule would define the term “origination” as meaning “the process of creating a mortgage, starting with the taking of the initial application, continuing with the processing and underwriting, and ending with the mortgagee endorsing the mortgage note for FHA mortgage insurance.” The proposed definition of “origination” would apply only to indemnifications for mortgages endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance under section 256 of the National Housing Act by authorized Lender Insurance mortgagees, and is not being proposed by HUD to apply in any other contexts related to the FHA programs.
As noted, cases of fraud or misrepresentation may require indemnification at any time. However, for cases not involving fraud or misrepresentation, section 256(c) limits the Department's ability to require indemnification to insurance claims paid within a “reasonable time period” established by HUD. New § 203.255(g) would implement this timing requirement by codifying HUD's longstanding practice of requiring indemnification for FHA insurance claims paid “within five years from the date of mortgage insurance endorsement.” The date of endorsement is a fixed date, and therefore has the benefit of being known to both HUD and the Lender Insurance mortgagee. Moreover, 5 years is a reasonable “seasoning” period for a particular mortgage loan to either perform or go into default and for the Department to ascertain whether errors in the origination of the mortgage loan were made, while not being so long a time frame so as to burden mortgagees with the possibility of indemnification for a long-ago endorsed mortgage loan.
Section 256(c) authorizes HUD to require indemnification where the mortgage was not originated in compliance with the HUD-established requirements. Proposed § 203.255(g) identifies the origination requirements for which HUD may seek indemnification if the Lender Insurance mortgagee knew or should have known that the requirements were not followed in the origination of the mortgage. HUD will seek such remedy for violations of FHA origination requirements that HUD deems serious and material; for example, in cases where the mortgage should never have been endorsed by the mortgagee, because FHA would not have insured the mortgage absent proper adherence to the Lender Insurance process. Specifically, a mortgagee may be required to indemnify HUD if it failed to, among other actions: (1) Verify and analyze the creditworthiness, income, and/or employment of the mortgagor in accordance with FHA requirements; (2) verify the source of assets brought by the mortgagor for payment of the required down payment and/or closing costs in accordance with FHA requirements; (3) address property deficiencies identified in the appraisal affecting the health and safety of the occupants or the structural integrity of the property in accordance with FHA requirements; or (4) ensure, in accordance with the requirements of § 203.5(e), that the appraisal of the property serving as security for the mortgage loan satisfies FHA appraisal
HUD deems violations of the origination requirements identified in the proposed rule as serious and material, because they pertain to the core analyses that must be performed for all properly underwritten mortgage loans. The purpose of mortgage loan underwriting is to evaluate the willingness and financial capability of the mortgagor to pay the loan, and to assess the physical condition of the property that is to serve as security for the mortgage loan, in order to determine whether it constitutes adequate collateral. These basic underwriting principles are enshrined in the so-called “Four C's of Credit” (credit, capacity, capital, and collateral) commonly referred to in the mortgage lending industry. The origination requirements listed above correspond to these fundamental underwriting functions. Accordingly, HUD believes that indemnification may be an appropriate remedy where the mortgagee knew or should have known that these requirements were not followed in the origination of the mortgage loan.
The proposed rule would also specify that the demand for indemnification will be made by either the Secretary or the Mortgagee Review Board. Under an indemnification agreement, the originating mortgage lender agrees to either abstain from filing an insurance claim, or to reimburse FHA if a subsequent holder of the mortgage files an insurance claim and FHA suffers a financial loss.
2.
The current regulation may make it easier for a single state mortgagee to meet the acceptable standard if the mortgagee operates in a state that has a high default rate. In contrast, a mortgagee would be disadvantaged by having its claim and default rate compared to the national average if the mortgagee operates in two states that have high default rates, even if the mortgagee is in full compliance with FHA requirements and otherwise eligible for Lender Insurance approval. To address these potential concerns, HUD proposes to revise the methodology for computing the acceptable claim and default rate for Lender Insurance approval. The proposed rule would revise § 203.4(b) by providing that a mortgagee is eligible for the Lender Insurance program if its claim and default rate is at or below 150 percent of the average rate in the state(s) where the mortgagee operates. The proposed methodology will more accurately reflect mortgagee performance by evaluating each mortgagee based on its actual area of operations.
3.
4.
Newly formed business entities that do not have a performance record are, therefore, ineligible for Lender Insurance approval. This is true even if the newly formed lending institution was created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization where one or more of the participating entities had Lender Insurance approval, and the new resulting lending institution retains the structure, staff, and operational protocols that would—absent the 2-year historical performance requirement—make the new entity eligible for Lender Insurance authority under section 256 of the National Housing Act. Deferral of Lender Insurance eligibility is merited for new corporate entities that have not had the time to establish an acceptable performance track history. However, in the case of new entities created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization, it is possible to forecast future performance with a high degree of certainty based on the performance history of the predecessor entities. To deny Lender Insurance eligibility to such mortgagees simply for purposes of “running out the clock” is contrary to the rationale of the performance history requirement and the Lender Insurance process.
In the past, the Department has addressed this issue through the granting of case-by-case regulatory waivers, a process that has the potential to be lengthy and, on occasion, administratively burdensome. This proposed rule would eliminate the need for regulatory waivers by codifying the conditions under which the Secretary may grant Lender Insurance authority to a mortgagee with less than the required historical performance record. The proposed criteria would permit HUD to evaluate the performance of the new mortgagee based on the performance history of the predecessor corporate entities, while also safeguarding against the possibility that a mortgagee with a poor track record might attempt to circumvent the purposes of section 256 by acquiring or merging with a high-performing lending institution.
First, the mortgagee must be an entity created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization completed less than 2 years prior to the date of the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance approval. Secondly, one or more of the entities participating in the merger, acquisition, or reorganization must have had Lender Insurance approval at the time of the corporate restructuring. Third, all of the lending institutions participating in the corporate
The proposed new process would permit, but not compel, HUD to grant Lender Insurance authority to those mortgagees meeting the criteria outlined above. While a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting approval would be established by a mortgagee that meets all four of the required criterions, HUD may consider other available evidence or data indicative of performance, and may deny the application for Lender Insurance authority and require the mortgagee to wait until it establishes an acceptable performance track record. The proposed regulatory provision is consistent with HUD's responsibility to evaluate mortgagee experience and ensure that Lender Insurance authority is provided only to high-performing lenders that comply with FHA requirements, while also facilitating the provision of FHA-insurance by new lending institutions created by a corporate restructuring.
5.
6.
7.
8.
In addition to soliciting public comment on the proposed regulatory changes described above in this preamble, the Department solicits comment on a possible change to current recordkeeping and submission requirements that the Department is considering. The present Direct Endorsement regulations at 24 CFR 203.255(b) require mortgagees to submit to HUD specified documentation within 60 days after the date of closing of a mortgage loan (collectively, these documents and certifications are referred to as the mortgage loan “case binder”). The Lender Insurance regulations at 24 CFR 203.255(f)(2) provide that mortgagees must maintain records, including origination files, in a manner and for a time frame prescribed by HUD, and must make these mortgage loan “case binders” available to HUD staff upon request.
Customarily, case binders are maintained and submitted to HUD in hard-copy paper format. Given changes in technology that facilitate the electronic submission and storing of mortgage loan records, HUD is now considering requiring by June 2012 that all case binders be submitted electronically regardless of the insurance process used by a mortgagee. Although Lender Insurance mortgagees are not currently required to submit case binders (except upon HUD's request for a post-endorsement technical review), under HUD's proposal they would be required to submit these mortgage loan records electronically within a specified time frame following insurance of the mortgage. The final rule may contain regulatory text requiring the electronic submission of case binders, and HUD invites public comment on such a possible change, including the appropriateness of a June 2012 implementation date, the costs and benefits that would be associated with the electronic submission of case binders, and what the required time frames should be for submission of electronic case binders following insurance of the mortgage. For more information about the costs and benefits of this provision, please see the regulatory planning and review section of this preamble.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). OMB determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of the Order (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Order).
This proposed rule would modify three existing areas affecting FHA-approved lenders. First, this rule would impose indemnification provisions to all approved mortgagees with Lender Insurance authority. Second, this rule would amend the methodology and requirements for determining an acceptable claim and default rate. Lastly, this rule would amend the 2-year
The primary change is that all Direct Endorsement lenders with Lender Insurance authority will be subject to indemnification procedures and will not be able to negotiate the settlement, as is the current practice. This facet of the rule could lead to an efficiency: the initial process by a lender of deciding whether to indemnify FHA will be eliminated, and would be accompanied by reductions in the length and cost of negotiations. Time and effort may be saved because the costs of a lengthy preparation for both FHA and the lender in coming before the Mortgage Review Board are reduced by this proposed rule. The number of signed indemnifications for the last seven fiscal years (FY 2004 through the end of FY 2010) has averaged 1,282 indemnification agreements annually. If the average negotiation costs are one percent of the loan amount for both FHA and the lender (approximately $140,000 is currently the average FHA-insured mortgage amount), then the transaction costs to avoid or delay the indemnification would be $1,400 per loan. Over an average of 1,300 indemnifications, the aggregate transaction costs saved by this rule would be $1.7 million.
To simulate the impact of the proposed changes, HUD used data on active Direct Endorsement lenders. By moving to a consistent methodology, regional lenders are compared not to a national standard, but to their peers operating in the same area. Using as a base the total number of 1,945 currently active Direct Endorsement lenders, an additional 18 lenders would have the claim and default rate necessary for Lender Insurance authority under this proposed rule. However, the proposed requirement that Lender Insurance mortgagees maintain the acceptable default and claim rate initially required for Lender Insurance eligibility appears to result in a minimal reduction in the number of Direct Endorsement lenders that would be deemed to eligible for Lender Insurance authority. Specifically, 113 out of the 1,945 currently active Direct Endorsement mortgagees would no longer have the necessary claim and default rate to maintain Lender Insurance authority; however, these mortgagees would retain their Direct Endorsement authority and could continue to participate in FHA programs.
The combined effect of the two proposed changes would be to reduce the number of Direct Endorsement mortgagees eligible for Lender Insurance authority (a reduction of 54). In the short run, this effect can be thought of as a transfer between lenders of different regions. In the longer run, HUD expects the impact of this rule to be geographically neutral. Lenders will not be permanently reduced as a result of this rule; rather, HUD expects that lenders who can meet the eligibility criteria will eventually assume the business of those lenders who could not meet the new eligibility criteria.
The minimum cost of this change to mortgagee would be zero. Most companies already possess the technology to process electronic documents for their investors. In addition, there are currently seven lenders that submit a total of 250,000 electronic case binders annually. These firms would not incur additional costs for submitting electronic binders to FHA. Although most companies already subscribe to a service that transmits electronic documents, sending them to FHA would impose an additional cost. A reasonable estimate of the additional cost per loan is a transaction fee in the range of $9 to $17 per case binder, with an upfront cost of $5,000 to $15,000 per firm. With 4,000 firms, the aggregate
The low-cost-scenario is defined as the case where the fixed and variable costs are lowest and the high-cost scenario where the costs are highest. The annualized cost over 10 years at a 3 percent discount rate would be $14 million in the low-cost scenario and $29 million annually in the high-cost scenario. At a 7 percent discount rate, the annualized cost over 10 years would be $15 million annually for the low-cost scenario and $31 million for the high-cost scenario.
The net cost, however, of moving to mandatory electronic submission should not be lesser the gross cost described above, since there will be some substitution from more expensive postal to electronic submission. These benefits are expected to last for the next 10 years until a new investment is required. Consider, for example, if the case binders of one-half of all loans were mailed to FHA at a cost of $30 per binder, then the annual savings of postal costs would be $18.7 million. This provision generates net benefits for the low-cost of transmission scenario (a total of $44 million at a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years) but not for the high-cost of transmission of scenario (a net cost of $81 million at the 3 percent discount rate). The annualized net benefit in the low-cost scenario is $5.4 million and the annualized net cost in the high-cost scenario is $9.6 annually.
The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule would not add any new regulatory burdens on FHA-approved mortgage lenders. Rather, as noted above in this preamble (
HUD also proposes to revise the methodology for determining acceptable claim and default rates. The regulatory change will more accurately evaluate a mortgagee's performance record by basing the claim and default rate comparison on the mortgagee's actual area of operations, rather than on the national average. This change would have an overall beneficial economic impact on small business lenders.
The proposed rule also specifies that mortgagees must maintain the acceptable claim and default rate required of them when they were initially granted Lender Insurance authority, in order to retain such authority, and that HUD will monitor mortgagee performance on an ongoing basis. As noted in the “Regulatory Planning and Review” section of this preamble, this provision of the proposed rule would result in a minimal reduction in the number of Direct Endorsement lenders that would be deemed eligible for Lender Insurance authority (113 out of a total of 1,945 currently active Direct Endorsement mortgagees). However, the economic impacts of this change should be minimal, as these lenders will continue to be able to participate in FHA programs as Direct Endorsement mortgagees. Moreover HUD reiterates that Lender Insurance authority is reserved for high-performing mortgagees that have a proven track record of risk management and sound underwriting practices. The regulatory change would merely require that Lender Insurance mortgagees maintain the same performance record that first made them eligible for Lender Insurance authority. To the extent that the proposed amendment has any impact, it will be as a consequence of the lender's inability to maintain acceptable risk management practices, and not as a result a HUD regulatory mandate.
The proposed rule also would make several changes designed to provide additional regulatory flexibility and better reflect existing market conditions. For example, the proposed rule would facilitate the compliance of new lending institutions created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization with the statutory requirements for Lender Insurance approval. Under HUD's regulations implementing section 256 of the National Housing Act, mortgagees must comply with a 2-year performance history requirement in order to qualify for Lender Insurance approval. As a new business entity, the lending institution created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization would not be able to comply with the performance 2-year history requirements, and thus would be ineligible for Lender Insurance authority. The regulatory 2-year performance history requirement may impose a burden on lenders whose compliance with FHA requirements is not affected by the business reorganization. Although HUD has in the past granted regulatory waivers to address this problem, the proposed rule will codify a solution that is less administratively burdensome than the regulatory waiver process.
The proposed rule also solicits comment on a possible change to current recordkeeping and submission requirements. In light of changes in technology that facilitate the electronic submission and storing of mortgage loan records, HUD is considering requiring that case binders be submitted electronically regardless of the insurance process used by a mortgagee. As discussed in detail in the “Regulatory Planning and Review” section of this preamble, the proposed change likely would reduce the economic burden imposed on mortgagees by no longer requiring that they incur the cost of maintaining paper records (except in the worst high-cost scenario). Moreover, these benefits are expected to last for the next 10 years until a new technology investment is required.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives, as described in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The information collection requirements for this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2502-0059. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the principal FHA single family mortgage insurance program is 14.117.
Hawaiian Natives, Home improvement, Indians—lands, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Solar energy.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 203 to read as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 203 is revised to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 1715z-16, 1715u, and 1717z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
2. In § 203.4, amend paragraph (a) by revising the reference “§ 203.5” to read “§ 203.3” and revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), to read as follows:
(b)
(2) HUD may approve a mortgagee that is otherwise eligible for Lender Insurance approval, but has an acceptable claim and default record of less than 2 years, if:
(i) The mortgagee is a an entity created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization completed less than 2 years prior to the date of the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance approval;
(ii) One or more of the entities participating in the merger, acquisition, or reorganization had Lender Insurance approval at the time of the merger, acquisition, or reorganization;
(iii) All of the lending institutions participating in the merger, acquisition, or reorganization had an acceptable claim and default record for the 2 years preceding the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance approval; and
(iv) The extrapolated claim and default record of the mortgagee derived by aggregating the claims and defaults of the entities participating in the merger, acquisition, or reorganization, for the2-year period prior to the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance approval, constitutes an acceptable rate of claims and defaults, as defined by this section.
(3) A mortgagee has an acceptable claim and default rate if its rate of claims and defaults is at or below 150 percent of the average rate for insured mortgages in the state(s) in which the mortgagee operates.
(c)
(d)
(i) Violates any of the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary for mortgagees approved to participate in HUD's Lender Insurance program, Direct Endorsement program, or the Title II Single Family mortgage insurance program; or
(ii) If HUD determines that other good cause exists.
(2) Such termination will be effective upon receipt of HUD's notice advising of the termination. Within 30 days after receiving HUD's notice of termination, a
(3) Termination of an origination approval agreement under part 202 of this chapter or termination of Direct Endorsement approval under § 203.3(d)(2) for a mortgagee or one or more branch offices automatically terminates Lender Insurance approval for the mortgagee or the branch office or offices, without imposing any further requirement on the mortgagee or such offices to comply with this paragraph.
(4) Any termination instituted under this section is distinct from withdrawal of mortgagee approval by the Mortgagee Review Board under 24 CFR part 25.
3. In § 203.255, revise paragraph (f)(1), remove paragraph (f)(4), and add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(f)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(i) Verify the creditworthiness, income, and/or employment of the mortgagor in accordance with FHA requirements;
(ii) Verify the assets brought by the mortgagor for payment of the required down payment and/or closing costs in accordance with FHA requirements; or
(iii) Address property deficiencies identified in the appraisal affecting the health and safety of the occupants or the structural integrity of the property in accordance with FHA requirements, or
(iv) Ensure that the appraisal of the property serving as security for the mortgage loan satisfies FHA appraisal requirements, in accordance with § 203.5(e).
(4)
(5)
United States Parole Commission, Justice.
Proposed rule.
The United States Parole Commission seeks public comment on a proposed rule that would amend the Offense Behavior Severity Index in its paroling policy guidelines to equalize the ratings for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
Comments must be received by December 1, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number USPC-2010-03 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Johanna E. Markind, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, telephone (301) 492-5959. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.
The U.S. Parole Commission is responsible for making parole release decisions for those federal prisoners who are eligible for parole under the now-repealed indeterminate sentencing system. Under this system, a prisoner may be released to community supervision after he serves a minimum term required by his sentence or by operation of law. After the Commission makes a discretionary judgment to release the prisoner and imposes conditions of release, the released prisoner remains on supervision until the expiration of his sentence or his supervision is terminated early. Parole may be revoked and the offender returned to imprisonment for violating the conditions of release. The Commission carries out its duties under the statutes at 18 U.S.C. 4201-4218. The Commission also has similar
The Parole Commission uses paroling policy guidelines in making decisions on parole release for parole-eligible federal prisoners, and federal and DC parolees whose paroles have been revoked and are eligible for reparole. These guidelines are also used for D.C. supervised releasees whose supervised release has been revoked. The guidelines are found at 28 CFR 2.20 and consist of an Offense Behavior Severity Index and a parole prognosis based on an actuarial tool known as the Salient Factor Score. The Offense Behavior Severity Index divides various crimes, including drug distribution crimes, into eight categories, from Category One (lowest severity) to Category Eight (highest severity). The guidelines also list four parole prognoses based on the Salient Factor Score from “very good” to “poor”. The offense categories are arrayed on a vertical axis and the parole prognoses on a horizontal axis. At the intersection of each offense category and parole prognosis, there is a suggested range of months to be served before release. For example, a prisoner with an offense severity rating of Category Five and a parole prognosis of poor has a suggested range of 60-72 months to be served. The Commission may set a release date that falls within the guideline range, or make a decision outside the guidelines.
In February 2010, the Commission Chair appointed a committee to review the Commission's rating of crack cocaine offenses and to recommend any changes it believed were needed. The committee's findings are summarized below. Based on those findings, the committee recommended that the Parole Commission amend its Offense Behavior Severity Index to equalize the weight ratios between powder and crack cocaine.
Effective April 5, 1987, the Parole Commission adopted its current guidelines for grading the severity of offenses involving cocaine distribution.
The Commission created separate guidelines for freebase or “crack” cocaine, and powder cocaine, under which offenses involving crack are sanctioned more severely than offenses involving powder cocaine, generally under a 10-to-1 ratio. That is, an offender distributing (or intending to distribute) a given weight of crack is presumptively sanctioned the same as an offender distributing (or intending to distribute) ten times that weight of powder cocaine. The Commission instituted the change because it was concerned that its prior guidelines did not appropriately sanction offenses related to the freebase form of the drug given the addictive nature of crack cocaine, the violence associated with its manufacture and distribution, and its relatively inexpensive street sale price. Former Senator D'Amato apparently recommended the 10-to-1 ratio. 51 FR 42594 (Nov. 25, 1986); 52 FR 5762. The basis for the selection of the 10-to-1 ratio was not further explained. The Commission sought public comment about “the relative potency of ‘CRACK’ cocaine as compared with other forms of the drug,” but did not receive any response. 51 FR 42594; 52 FR 5762.
The Commission's current policy was adopted at about the same time Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Public Law 99-570, and at the time the U.S. Sentencing Commission was formulating its sentencing guidelines. Crack was a relatively new drug at the time but, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, it was “a matter of great public concern.”
a. Crack is typically prepared at or near the end of the distribution chain. Two-thirds of federal crack cocaine offenders were street-level dealers and only 5.9% performed trafficking functions.
b. “The overwhelming majority of offenders subject to the heightened crack cocaine penalties are black, about 85 percent in 2000 * * *. This has contributed to a widely held perception that the current penalty structure promotes unwarranted disparity based on race.”
c. Cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and psychotropic effects, but powder cocaine, because it is usually snorted, poses a lesser risk of addiction to the typical user than does crack cocaine, which is usually smoked. Precisely quantifying this difference in addictiveness is impossible.
d. While serious, the relative harmfulness of crack has been exaggerated. Violence was associated only with a small minority of crack offenses. In 2000, three out of four crack offenders had no involvement with a weapon and even when offenders possessed weapons, the weapons were rarely used. Only 2.3% of crack offenders used a weapon, and only 7.9% of crack offenses involved bodily injury of any type. Research showed that the negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack were identical to the negative effects of cocaine powder. The feared epidemic of youth using crack did not materialize to the extent feared.
The Commission's study committee relied upon research collected by the Sentencing Commission as its starting point in reviewing Parole Commission policies for sanctioning crack cocaine offenses. Glen R. Hanson, then Acting Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, testified before the Sentencing Commission on February 25, 2002, that: “Cocaine, in any form, produces the same effects once it reaches the brain. It produces similar physiological and psychological effects, but the onset, intensity and duration of its effects are related directly to the method of use and how rapidly cocaine enters the brain.” According to Dr. Hanson, a drug user snorting powder cocaine begins to feel the “high” within 3-5 minutes, the blood level peaks at 10-20 minutes, and fades within 45-60 minutes. Intravenous use, or injection—for which powder cocaine is also used—results in a cocaine “rush” within 30-45 seconds and the drug's effects last for 10-20 minutes. Inhalation, or smoking—
Unlike the offense ratings for powder cocaine, the ratings for crack do not require the Parole Commission to determine its purity level before determining the severity category for the possession or distribution of the drug. The study committee examined whether the guidelines should be revised to consider purity level for a mixture containing cocaine base as it does for a mixture containing cocaine powder. When the guidelines were developed in the 1970s, the purity of cocaine powder and heroin varied widely from original production to street level distribution. It was not uncommon to see virtually pure cocaine powder diluted numerous times with cutting agents as it moved down the line through various levels of drug dealers. Therefore, the Commission determined that the only fair way to gauge the seriousness of a cocaine offense was to ascertain the purity of the substance and to sanction based only on the actual amount (weight) of pure cocaine involved.
In considering the issue of an appropriate severity rating for crack cocaine, the Commission was aware that once crack rocks are produced, they can be cut into smaller rocks but they cannot readily be diluted. The purity remains the same as the product moves down the distribution chain. Moreover, the purity of crack produced for use generally does not vary much from one batch to the next. Much as the purity of marijuana remains rather constant from batch to batch, the seriousness of crack offenses seemed to be better judged strictly by gross quantity (weight) without regard for purity.
More recent information indicates that there is some variance in the purity levels of crack, but less so than in the purity levels of powder cocaine. This conclusion is based on interviews conducted by committee members and by the written conclusions of the Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission's 1995 report
The bulk of the Parole Commission's current caseload involving crack sales concerns small-time street sales in the District of Columbia. The Commission's experience is that the DEA laboratory performs an analysis of crack confiscated by DC police only if a case appears headed for trial. If the case appears headed for a guilty plea or if a revocation hearing is held before a case is adjudicated, it is often difficult for the Commission to obtain a laboratory report. As a practical matter, Commission files frequently do not contain DEA lab reports in crack cocaine cases, and so it would be impossible in many cases to determine the purity level of crack involved.
The committee sought feedback from Commission hearing examiners about the current policy and whether it should be changed. Those examiners who responded unanimously favored equalizing the treatment of crack and powder cocaine. The general consensus was that the existing sanctions for crack are too harsh and discriminatory (socioeconomically if not racially), and that many of those caught selling were not in fact hard-core dealers but were essentially addicts trying to fund their own habit.
In sum, the study committee found:
a. There was no empirical basis for the 10-to-1 ratio adopted by the Parole Commission in 1987 which is currently used in Commission guidelines.
b. Cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and psychotropic effects on the brain.
c. Crack cocaine is more addictive than powder cocaine because the method of taking the drug (inhalation) results in the user experiencing a faster “high” and faster “crash.” Unfortunately, the committee was unable to identify any authoritative sources quantifying the increased risk of addiction that crack represents. Furthermore, a user who injects powder also experiences a rapid high and low from the drug, although the effects from injection are not felt quite as rapidly as from smoking crack, and powder is more often snorted than injected.
d. According to the DEA and Sentencing Commission, one gram of cocaine powder converts/reduces to 0.89 gram cocaine base. Conversely, one gram of cocaine base would convert to 1.12 grams of cocaine powder.
e. As a practical matter, establishing the exact purity ratio of crack in a transaction that is examined by the Commission but that did not result in a trial would be all but impossible in most revocation cases unless a practical means is found for hearing examiners to obtain laboratory analyses on a consistent basis.
f. Commission hearing examiners who provided feedback to the committee unanimously favored equalizing the weight-based sanctions for crack and powder cocaine.
In 1995, the Sentencing Commission recommended eliminating the sentencing guidelines' 100-to-1 disparity in rating powder cocaine and crack cocaine crimes. After Congress rejected that suggestion, the Sentencing Commission recommended reducing the disparity to 5-to-1. In 2007, the Sentencing Commission adopted an ameliorative change reducing the sentencing guidelines base offense score by two levels in crack cases to reduce the disparity; depending on the weight of drugs involved, the revised ratio varied from 25-to-1 to 50-to-1.
In July 2009, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation (H.R. 3245, The Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009) that would completely eliminate the disparity between powder and crack cocaine. On October 15, 2009, Senator Durbin introduced a draft bill (S. 1789, The Fair Sentencing Act) in the Senate that would likewise have eliminated the disparity. On March 11, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a revised version that reduced the disparity on new sentences to 18-to-1. The full Senate passed the bill (applying an 18-to-1 ratio) on March 17, 2010, and the House approved it on July 28, 2010. Now known as the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the President signed it into law on August 3, 2010.
Opponents of equalization of crack and powder cocaine offenses have argued that differential treatment of powder and crack cocaine offenses is supported by the association of violence with crack crimes. The new law requires the Sentencing Commission to provide a sentencing enhancement “if the defendant used violence” or threatened or directed the use of violence. Parole Commission guidelines take violence into account through a different method. In the case of drug crimes involving violence, if the guidelines offense severity rating for the violent/assaultive conduct exceeds the rating for the drug offense, the former will be applied.
After weighing the above findings, the study committee recommended that the Commission propose a rule change to the paroling guidelines at Chapter Nine of the Offense Behavior Severity Index that would equalize the offense severity ratings for crack and powder cocaine
The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
This regulation 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. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require a Federalism Assessment.
The proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.
This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, this is a rule of agency practice or procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in Section 804(3)(c), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(c). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and parole.
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission is proposing the following amendment to 28 CFR part 2.
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows:
18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).
2. Amend § 2.20, in the U.S. Parole Commission Offense Behavior Severity Index, Chapter Nine—Offenses Involving Illicit Drugs, by revising the entry entitled “921
(a) If extremely large scale (
(b) If very large scale (
(c) Where the Commission finds that the offender had only a peripheral role*, grade conduct under (a) or (b) as Category Six;
(d) If large scale (
(e) Where the Commission finds that the offender had only a peripheral role, grade conduct under (d) as Category Five;
(f) If medium scale (
(g) If small scale (
(h) If very small scale (
(i) If extremely small scale (
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations to set the minimum level of activity required to hold a deposit account at 12 transactions per year; require deposit account holders to maintain a minimum balance in that account; mandate the closure of a deposit account the second time it is overdrawn; and offer deposit account holders the option of automatic replenishment of their account via their bank account or credit card.
Written comments must be received in the Office of the General
If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM-401, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office.
If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (“CCAS”) located at 2nd and D Streets, SE., Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, LM-403, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL.
If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024.
Tanya Sandros, Deputy General Counsel or, Chris Weston, Attorney Advisor. Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
The Copyright Office maintains a system of deposit accounts for those who frequently use its services. An individual or entity may establish a deposit account, make advance deposits into that account, and charge copyright fees against the balance instead of sending separate payments with applications and other requests for services. This process has proven to be more efficient and less expensive for both the Office and the applicant than sending separate payments to the Copyright Office for each application for registration or for other services.
On July 14, 2009, the Copyright Office published a notice in the
The goal of the July 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (and the goal of the present Notice) was to solve the problem of paper registration applications being suspended for lack of deposit account funds. As the Notice explained, when the deposit account being used for payment has insufficient funds to process a paper application, the Copyright Office suspends processing of the application to notify the account holder that replenishment of the account is needed, and places the pending application and associated deposit copies in temporary storage. The suspended applications, which may number 3,000 or more at any one time, must be reviewed regularly by Office staff to locate those that are newly funded and reprocess them. Thus, insufficient deposit account funding effectively doubles—at a minimum—the time Office staff must spend processing an application, time that would otherwise be more profitably spent on processing properly filed claims in a more timely manner.
On average, three to four percent of paper applications for registration are suspended each year due to lack of sufficient deposit account funds. In fiscal 2007, between 16,000 and 22,000 applications were put on hold for insufficient deposit account funds, and the amount appears to have remained consistent throughout 2008 and 2009. The Office has expended substantial resources managing these suspended applications and deposits. While the Office assesses service charges for deposit account overdrafts ($165) and dishonored deposit account replenishment checks ($85),
In July 2009, the Copyright Office proposed that the problem of insufficient deposit account funds for paper applications should be solved by requiring all deposit account holders to file their applications via eService, the Office's electronic registration system. An application for registration made via eService cannot be completed until the method of payment is verified by, for example, ensuring that sufficient funds are present in the deposit account and payment has been made. This method is much more efficient than filing paper applications, which must go through a number of processing steps before the validity of the proffered method of payment can be ascertained. The proposal also noted that electronic registration benefits applicants in that it offers a lower fee than paper registrations ($35 instead of $65) and helps to establish an earlier effective date of registration.
Even though approximately 3,000 entities currently use deposit accounts, the July 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking garnered only six public comments. Of these, the American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP), the Historical Publications Section of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR), and Perseus Book Group supported the proposed eService application requirement. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Intellectual Property Researchers Association (NIPRA), and Government Liaison Services, Inc. (GLS) opposed the proposal. Four of the commenters also discussed the continued value of deposit accounts. The MPAA, NCDCR, and Perseus vigorously maintained that deposit accounts still offer significant benefits. ASMP, on the other hand, offered conditional support for their elimination.
For those commenters who voiced approval of the mandatory electronic registration proposal—praising the current functionality of eService, NCDCR comment at 2, and stating that the requirement “would substantially improve the speed, efficiency and economy of processing applications,” ASMP comment at 1-2—the benefits of electronic registration will of course remain available.
The MPAA comments, however, challenged the initial proposed rule as premature and suggested an alternative whereby each deposit account holder would be charged an up-front $100 fee that would be held as a kind of security deposit. MPAA comment at 2. According to the MPAA proposal, if an applicant has insufficient funds in its deposit account to pay for a paper application, the Copyright Office should close the deposit account and use the security deposit to pay for returning the application to the applicant. The MPAA argued that rights-holders should not be
MPAA also expressed its skepticism of eService's reliability. “eService is relatively new and there continues to be some `bugs' in the system,” it stated. Specifically, “MPAA member companies have experienced difficulties in allowing multiple users to access the system at the same time, and there is a need for the new system to have a meaningful review capability, which would include true search functionality.” MPAA comment at 3. MPAA's comment dates from August 2009, and since then the Office has significantly improved eService's capabilities.
Two other commenters also took issue with the Copyright Office's claims for eService efficiency. NIPRA and GLS challenged the Copyright Office's estimation of how long eService registration applications take to be processed, arguing that since the advent of electronic registration, processing time has actually increased to two years. NIPRA comment at 2; GLS comment at 2. In fact the processing time increase—which is real—represents for the most part the increased time needed to process paper applications, which now have to be transcribed into the Office's digital system. eService applications with sufficient funds are not subject to this additional step, and thus generally enjoy quicker processing. Currently, 90% of eService registration applications are processed in slightly more than five months (meaning many are completed much sooner), compared to 25 months for paper applications.
NIPRA and GLS further charged that “given the Copyright Office requirement for deposits consisting of the `best edition' of works, the physical limitations of the electronic system will render compliance with the requirement impossible for works such as voluminous texts, motion pictures and many software filings.” NIPRA comment at 2. This concern is misplaced. Electronic registration does not require the submission of an electronic deposit. Applicants have an option of either uploading the deposit as an electronic file or sending the deposit to the Office using the packing slip provided during the electronic registration process. 37 CFR 202.3(b)(2)(ii)(A)-(B). Whether a deposit copy is sent electronically or physically depends upon its native format and the Library's needs. Most works subject to the best edition requirement must be submitted in hard copy form, since in most cases the Library's best edition requirements specify a physical format.
NIPRA and GLS also questioned the security of electronic deposit copies. NIPRA comment at 2; GLS comment at 1-2. The Copyright Office is unaware that the uploading of files to the Copyright Office via eService presents any security concerns. Of course, the security and integrity of all eService transactions are of paramount importance to the Copyright Office, and it has implemented robust security measures, which continue to be improved. However, the prior eService amendment only concerned the registration application, not the deposit copies which, in the majority of cases may continue to be sent separately in physical, tangible formats.
The Copyright Office carefully considered each of the comments discussed above and it has been persuaded that mandatory electronic application was not the most appropriate solution to its problems of underfunded paper applications. While the Office still feels strongly that electronic registration is vastly more efficient than paper registration, and redounds to the benefit of applicants as much as to the benefit of the Office, it has concluded that mandatory electronic registration was an over-general solution to the specific problems described. Its current proposal of a minimum deposit account balance requirement and optional automatic replenishment discussed herein is a more targeted response to the problems facing the Office.
In its July 15th, 2009, notice, the Copyright Office also sought public comment on whether it should cease offering deposit accounts altogether. It noted that, in an era when paper applications and payment via check were the norm, a separate, simplified deposit account system presented attractive efficiencies to frequent applicants and to the Office. It also pointed out that in an era of electronic registration and payment via corporate or other credit cards, the administrative costs of maintaining a separate deposit account system are no longer clearly offset by its advantages; hence, the reason for the Office's inquiry concerning abolition of the deposit account system.
While one commenter stated that there was “no apparent need” for the Copyright Office to continue offering deposit accounts, ASMP comment at 2, three other commenters argued that the elimination of deposit accounts would certainly be harmful. Perseus stated that deposit accounts are a “valuable and relevant service” that make it easier to track its copyright budget. Perseus comment at 1. NCDCR, referencing its particular administrative issues as a state agency, said that deposit accounts offer significant efficiencies over individual payments. NCDCR comment at 2. Finally, MPAA argued that corporate credit cards are not an effective alternative because they require spending controls that, if improperly monitored, could result in registration applications being delayed for insufficient funds. MPAA comment at 4.
The Copyright Office acknowledges that deposit accounts are a useful and efficient option for copyright owners who frequently use its services, including, but not limited to registration. Consequently, it will continue to offer deposit accounts for the foreseeable future, but reserves its prerogative to revisit the question of their utility and cost to the Office.
After considering the comments filed to the initial NPRM, the Copyright Office explored other options for addressing its problems with underfunded deposit accounts and is now proposing a number of administrative requirements to solve the problem. Specifically, the Office is proposing to amend its regulations to (1) Set the minimum level of activity required to hold a deposit account at 12 transactions per year; (2) require deposit account holders to maintain a minimum balance in that account; (3) mandate the closure of a deposit account the second time it is overdrawn; and (4) offer deposit account holders the option of automatic replenishment of their account via their bank account or credit card.
The Copyright Office proposes to replace the words “a considerable amount of business” with “12 or more transactions a year” in section 37 CFR 201.6(b) in order to more clearly delineate the intended users of the deposit account program. The program's
The Office also proposes to institute a requirement that every deposit account holder must establish, in consultation with the Copyright Office, a minimum balance for its deposit account. Ideally, this balance will be the lowest amount a deposit account holder can have in his or her account and still be able to pay for their regular number of copyright registration applications. This amount will be set collaboratively so that both the account holder and the office are comfortable that it will be sufficient for the account holder's expected activity.
In the event a deposit account reaches its minimum balance, the Copyright Office will automatically notify the account holder, but take no further action. The minimum balance requirement is intended to act primarily as an indicator to the account holder that the account may need replenishment; going below a minimum balance does not in itself expose the account holder to any adverse consequences.
The Copyright Office proposes that upon the second occasion that a deposit account is overdrawn—meaning the second time there is not enough money in an account to pay the fee for a submitted registration—the account will be closed. In practice this rule will only affect deposit account holders who use paper applications, because eService will not allow an application to be submitted without sufficient funds.
However, a deposit account holder whose account is closed because it has been overdrawn twice is not foreclosed from using a deposit account in the future. The deposit account holder may re-open a new account on the condition that it is funded through the automatic replenishment option. This condition is to protect the account holder from the risk of overdrawing again and to protect the Copyright Office from the risk of further suspended applications.
The Copyright Office proposes to offer a voluntary automatic replenishment program to all deposit account holders. Under this program, the deposit account holder would provide pre-authorization to the Copyright Office to replenish the account from the account holder's credit card or bank account. Replenishment would take place when the deposit account reaches its minimum balance, at which time the Office will also immediately notify the account holder of the replenishment. The account holder would determine the amount of replenishment above the pre-determined minimum balance at the time the account holder enters the program.
The Office seeks comment from the public on the following proposed regulations for governing deposit accounts maintained by the Copyright Office.
Copyright, General provisions.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to amend 37 CFR Ch. II as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
2. Section 201.6(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b)
(2) The Copyright Office will close a Deposit Account the second time the Deposit Account holder overdraws his or her account. An account closed for this reason can be re-opened only if the holder elects to fund it through automatic replenishment.
(3) In order to ensure that a Deposit Account's funds are sufficiently maintained, a Deposit Account holder may authorize the Copyright Office to automatically replenish the account from the holder's bank account or credit card. The amount by which a Deposit Account will be replenished will be determined by the deposit account holder. Automatic replenishment will be triggered when the Deposit Account reaches the minimum level of funding established pursuant to section (b)(1), and Deposit Account holders will be automatically notified of the replenishment.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its regulations concerning the reimbursement of medical care and services delivered to veterans for nonservice-connected conditions. The proposed rule would apply in situations where third-party payers are required to reimburse VA for costs related to care provided by VA to a veteran covered under the third-party payer's plan. This proposed rule would add a new section barring offsets by third-party payers and establishing a process by which third-party payers would submit a request for a refund on claims for which there is an alleged overpayment.
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2010.
Written comments may be submitted through
Anthony Norris, Program Analyst,
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729, a third-party payer, such as a private medical insurer, has an obligation to pay the United States reasonable charges for the cost of medical care or services furnished to a veteran for a nonservice-connected disability when the veteran or the provider of the care or services would otherwise be eligible to receive payment for such medical care from the third-party payer. The obligation to pay is to the extent that the beneficiary would be eligible to receive reimbursement or indemnification from the third-party payer if the beneficiary were to incur the costs on the beneficiary's own behalf. VA's authority under section 1729 is generally implemented in 38 CFR 17.101 through 17.105. However, the topic of addressing reimbursement offsets for medical care or services as proposed in this rulemaking is not covered by current VA regulations. As explained below in further detail, this proposed rule is consistent with regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 32 CFR part 220. DOD's collection statute, 10 U.S.C. 1095, is similar to VA's collection statute, 38 U.S.C. 1729. Therefore, VA proposes to implement section 1729 in a manner substantially similar to DOD's implementation of section 1095. VA's implementation of these changes will provide clarity and uniformity in how third-party payers interact with both Departments.
As a matter of common business practice, third-party payers who are (or who believe that they are) owed a refund from VA based on an overpayment often recoup such money by unilaterally offsetting a future payment amount to VA. As a purchaser and provider of care, VA medical centers are subject to this practice of unilateral offsets. An offset occurs when the payer, alleging that it made an earlier overpayment to VA, reduces or takes back the alleged overpayment by withholding payment owed to VA on an unrelated debt transaction. In an attempt to recoup the overpayment, the payer seldom associates the reduced payment with the alleged overpaid claim. Third-party payer unilateral offsets disrupt VA accounting practices and present certain challenges to VA in managing third-party collections and evaluating account receivables for deficient payments. Further, such practices eliminate VA's opportunity to validate the alleged overpayment and pursue proper review, if deemed appropriate given the circumstances.
This proposed rule would address third-payer offsets and certain policy exclusions and, consequently, improve VA's administration of account receivables and increase efficiency in maintaining third-party payer debts. The proposed rule would provide specific procedures that VA will use to recover payments from third-parties, consistent with our interpretation of our authority to recover payments from third-parties under section 1729. We believe that VA's statutory right to recovery of payment is not contingent upon a third-party payer's assertions regarding previous alleged overpayments and that the authority to compromise a claim rests with the government, not with the payer. Without the consent of the government, a third-party payer cannot compromise a claim premised on a separate disputed transaction. A request must be submitted and adjudicated separately. Several states prohibit third-party payer automatic offsets and require some form of notice and due process. We believe that VA should have protection from off-setting practices similar to that afforded individual states. Although section 1729 does not specifically address all of the issues that are addressed by this proposed rule, we believe that our proposed implementation of the statute is consistent with Congress' intent.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule would explain the general rule, discussed above, that VA has the authority to recover or collect reasonable charges from third-party payers for medical care or services provided for nonservice-connected disability to a veteran who is also covered by the third-party payer's plan. We also state that our right to recover or collect is limited to “the extent that the beneficiary or a non-government provider of care or services would be eligible to receive reimbursement or indemnification from the third-party payer if the beneficiary were to incur the costs on the beneficiary's own behalf.” This limitation is statutory, because section 1729 states that VA's right applies only “to the extent that the veteran (or the provider of the care or services) would be eligible to receive payment for such care or services from such third-party if the care or services had not been furnished by a department or agency of the United States.” Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would essentially restate the statute.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would provide several definitions applicable to this section. These definitions incorporate and interpret the statutory definitions of
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would explain that “reasonable charges” for the purposes of section 1729 are calculated using the regulatory method applicable to the particular charge as prescribed in current 38 CFR 17.101. We intend no substantive change regarding VA's reasonable charges methodology and propose this provision only to provide notice that VA would bill third parties a “reasonable charge” as determined under current regulations for its services.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would explain that, “If the third-party payer's plan includes a requirement for a deductible or copayment by the beneficiary of the plan, VA will recover or collect reasonable charges less that deductible or copayment amount.” This merely restates the statutory requirement in section 1729(a)(3)(B) that the collectible or recoverable amount must be reduced by any deductible or copayment or both.
Proposed paragraph (c) would establish that VA's right to recover or collect under this section is exclusive and prescribe that “[t]he only way for a third-party payer to satisfy its obligation under this section is to pay the VA facility or other authorized representative of the United States. Payment by a third-party payer to the beneficiary does not satisfy the third-party's obligation under this section.” This statement would address confusion on the part of third-party payers
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would allow the United States to file a claim for payment or institute and prosecute legal proceedings against a third-party payer, within six years, to enforce a right of the United States under 38 U.S.C. 1729 and this section. This proposed provision would restate section 1729(b)(2).
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would restate the United States' right to compromise, settle or waive a claim under the proposed rule, consistent with section 1729(c)(1).
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would list the statutory authority for the remedies available to the United States in collection actions under section 1729. These remedies include administrative offset and other means to collect.
Pursuant to section 1729(a) and (f), the United States has a right to collect, consistent with the statutory terms, the reasonable charges for medical care and services from a third-party payer. This right is not contingent upon a third-party payer's unsubstantiated assertions regarding previous alleged overpayments, rather a third-party payer must provide information sufficient for VA to determine that an overpayment occurred. Under section 1729(c)(1) and 38 CFR part 2, the authority to compromise, settle, or waive a claim rests with the government, not with the payer.
Therefore, proposed paragraph (c)(4) would prescribe that, without the consent of the government, a third-party payer cannot unilaterally compromise or settle a claim premised on a separate disputed transaction. It would also prohibit offsetting and reducing subsequent payments. A request for refund is a claim against the United States and must be submitted and adjudicated separately.
Proposed paragraph (d) would address whether beneficiaries must execute an assignment of benefits form for the third-party payer to pay. No such form would be needed because, under section 1729, the right to collect is already assigned to the government. Unless the patient actually incurs some expenses for the hospital care provided in or through a VA medical facility, the patient likely has no benefit to assign under the terms of the third-party payer's plan. Thus, in general, assuming that the patient has made no payment for the services received, the third-party payer need only recognize that its sole obligation for payment is to the United States and that this obligation is not dependent upon any assignment of benefits. Proposed paragraph (d) would reflect this.
Proposed paragraph (e) would restate section 1729(f) and prescribe that any law or regulation of a State or political subdivision thereof and any provision of any contract or agreement that purports to establish any requirement on a third-party payer that would prevent recovery or collection by the United States will have no force or effect on a third-party payer's responsibility under section 1729 or proposed § 17.106.
Proposed paragraph (f) would implement section 1729(f), which states: “[N]o provision of any contract or other agreement, shall operate to prevent recovery or collection by the United States.” Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would restate this statutory requirement.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would establish several general rules derived from the statutory requirements. These general rules would help interested parties resolve issues that may arise in the course of collection actions and are intended to generally clarify VA's interpretation of its authority under section 1729.
The first general rule, in proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i), would state one of the clear mandates of section 1729(f): Express exclusions of limitations inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. 1729 are inoperative under Federal law. We provide, for clarification, that an example of an impermissible exclusion under this paragraph is a provision that purports to disallow payment for services provided by a government entity or paid for by a government program.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would prescribe that no objection, precondition or limitation may be asserted that defeats the statutory purpose of collecting from third-party payers. This would extend the first general rule to cover situations in which a third-party payer's plan might at first not appear to treat VA medical facilities less favorably, but nonetheless produces that effect. This interpretation is based on the statutory formulation of the prohibition in terms of provisions that have the effect of excluding or limiting payment. A clarifying example is provided in the proposed text, and explains that a third-party payer cannot refuse or reduce payment based on a provision in the third-party payer's plan that purports to disallow payment when the beneficiary has no legal obligation to pay. Such an exclusion is impermissible under section 1729(a)(1), which provides that the government's right to collect is to the extent the beneficiary or nongovernment provider would receive reimbursement.
A basic statutory characteristic of VA health care and services is that veterans have no obligation to pay (except the nominal co-payments for medication required by 38 U.S.C. 1722A). Recognizing this, Congress concluded that the government collects from third parties as if the veteran has an obligation to pay. Thus, we interpret section 1729 to mean that the fact that a veteran has no actual obligation is irrelevant. The same conclusion would apply to any other exclusion in a third-party plan that is expressed in similar language, such as that no charge would be made if the person had no health insurance.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii) would restate statutory requirements and prescribe that third-party payers may not treat claims arising from services provided in or through VA medical facilities less favorably than they treat claims arising from services provided in other hospitals. Under section 1729(f), VA has the right to collect reasonable charges from a third-party payer to the extent that the third-party payer would pay for care or services furnished by providers other than VA. The general rule disallowing less favorable treatment would provide a useful method of analyzing situations to assure compliance with the statute.
The proposed clarifying example concerns an employer-sponsored health plan that purports to make ineligible for coverage individuals who are provided medical care and services in or through a VA medical facility. Such an exclusion would clearly have the effect of treating VA medical facilities less favorably than other hospitals.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iv) would prescribe that payments cannot be refused or reduced based on the lack of a participation agreement or the absence
We note that some VA medical facilities have understandings or agreements with some third-party payers concerning claims procedures for the purpose of facilitating administration of health care and collection of payments. Such understandings or agreements would not offend our rule as long as they do not purport to be preconditions to complying with statutory and regulatory requirements.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(v) and (vi) would set forth rules relating to Medicare carve-out and Medicare secondary payer provisions. The usual procedure for Medicare supplemental carriers is to accept claims only after the primary claim has been processed and paid by Medicare. In this way, the remaining liability, which becomes the responsibility of the supplemental policy, is apparent. However, a different process is required in section 1729 cases because, under section 1729(i)(1)(B)(i), there is no claim submitted to Medicare. Instead, the third-party payer is statutorily required to accept the claim as involving Medicare covered services from an authorized provider. Supplemental insurers do not have a statutory entitlement to a particular government adjudicatory process.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(vii) would bar Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) from excluding claims or refusing to certify emergent and urgent services provided within the HMO's service area or otherwise covered non-emergency services provided out of the HMO's service area. In addition, it would provide that opt-out or point-of-service options available under an HMO plan may not exclude services otherwise payable under section 1729 or this section. We interpret section 1729 to mean that HMO plans must pay only to the extent that HMO plans generally cover services (e.g., emergencies) provided by health care facilities not affiliated with the HMO. Further, we interpret the statute to mean that HMO plans that have a point-of-service option are required to pay VA the same amount that would be paid under the plan to nongovernment providers.
Proposed paragraph (g) would restate section 1729(h), which requires that VA medical facilities make available for inspection and review to representatives of third-party payers appropriate health care records of patients. However, the records would be made available only to verify the care and services provided by VA for which payment, recovery, or collection is sought, and to verify that such care or services met the permissible criteria under the health plan involved. In light of privacy concerns, VA will not provide any other records maintained by a VA medical facility to a third-party payer.
This document contains no new collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would affect mainly large insurance companies. This proposed rule might have an insignificant impact on a few small entities that do an inconsequential amount of their business with VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is also exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action 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.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 10, 2010, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as noted in specific sections.
2. Redesignate § 17.106 as § 17.107.
3. Add new § 17.106 before the undesignated center heading “Disciplinary Control of Beneficiaries Receiving Hospital, Domiciliary or Nursing Home Care” to read as follows:
(a)(1)
(2)
(i)
(A) Circumstances in which liability benefits are paid to an injured party only when the insured party's tortious acts are the cause of the injuries; and
(B) Uninsured and underinsured coverage, in which there is a third-party tortfeasor who caused the injuries (i.e., benefits are not paid on a no-fault basis), but the insured party is not the tortfeasor.
(ii)
(A) Any plan offered by an insurer, re-insurer, employer, corporation, organization, trust, organized health care group or other entity.
(B) Any plan for which the beneficiary pays a premium to an issuing agent as well as any plan to which the beneficiary is entitled as a result of employment or membership in or association with an organization or group.
(C) Any Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA) plan.
(D) Any Multiple Employer Trust (MET).
(E) Any Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement (MEWA).
(F) Any Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plan, including any such plan with a point-of-service provision or option.
(G) Any individual practice association (IPA) plan.
(H) Any exclusive provider organization (EPO) plan.
(I) Any physician hospital organization (PHO) plan.
(J) Any integrated delivery system (IDS) plan.
(K) Any management service organization (MSO) plan.
(L) Any group or individual medical services account.
(M) Any participating provider organization (PPO) plan or any PPO provision or option of any third-party payer plan.
(N) Any Medicare supplemental insurance plan.
(O) Any automobile liability insurance plan.
(P) Any no fault insurance plan, including any personal injury protection plan or medical payments benefit plan for personal injuries arising from the operation of a motor vehicle.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(A) State and local governments that provide such plans other than Medicaid.
(B) Insurance underwriters or carriers.
(C) Private employers or employer groups offering self-insured or partially self-insured medical service or health plans.
(D) Automobile liability insurance underwriter or carrier.
(E) No fault insurance underwriter or carrier.
(F) Workers' compensation program or plan sponsor, underwriter, carrier, or self-insurer.
(G) Any other plan or program that is designed to provide compensation or coverage for expenses incurred by a beneficiary for healthcare services or products.
(H) A third-party administrator.
(b)
(1) The “reasonable charges” subject to recovery or collection by VA under this section are calculated using the applicable method for such charges established by VA in 38 CFR 17.101.
(2) If the third-party payer's plan includes a requirement for a deductible or copayment by the beneficiary of the plan, VA will recover or collect reasonable charges less that deductible or copayment amount.
(c)
(1) Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729(b)(2), the United States may file a claim or institute and prosecute legal proceedings against a third-party payer to enforce a right of the United States under 38 U.S.C. 1729 and this section. Such filing or proceedings must be instituted within six years after the last day of the provision of the medical care or services for which recovery or collection is sought.
(2) An authorized representative of the United States may compromise, settle or waive a claim of the United States under this section.
(3) The remedies authorized for collection of indebtedness due the United States under 31 U.S.C. 3701,
(4) A third-party payer may not, without the consent of a U.S. Government official authorized to take action under 38 U.S.C. 1729 and this part, offset or reduce any payment due under 38 U.S.C. 1729 or this part on the grounds that the payer considers itself due a refund from a VA facility. A written request for a refund must be submitted and adjudicated separately from any other claims submitted to the third-party payer under 38 U.S.C. 1729 or this part.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2) General rules. The following are general rules for the administration of 38 U.S.C. 1729 and this part, with examples provided for clarification. The examples provided are not exclusive. A third-party payer may not reduce, offset, or request a refund for payments made to VA under the following conditions:
(i) Express exclusions or limitations in third-party payer plans that are inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. 1729 are inoperative. For example, a provision in a third-party payer's plan that purports to disallow or limit payment for services provided by a government entity or paid for by a government program (or similar exclusion) is not a permissible ground for refusing or reducing third-party payment.
(ii) No objection, precondition or limitation may be asserted that defeats the statutory purpose of collecting from third-party payers. For example, a provision in a third-party payer's plan that purports to disallow or limit payment for services for which the patient has no obligation to pay (or similar exclusion) is not a permissible ground for refusing or reducing third-party payment.
(iii) Third-party payers may not treat claims arising from services provided in or through VA facilities less favorably than they treat claims arising from services provided in other hospitals. For example, no provision of an employer sponsored program or plan that purports to make ineligible for coverage individuals who are eligible to receive VA medical care and services shall be permissible.
(iv) The lack of a participation agreement or the absence of privity of contract between a third-party payer and VA is not a permissible ground for refusing or reducing third-party payment.
(v) A provision in a third-party payer plan, other than a Medicare supplemental plan, that seeks to make Medicare the primary payer and the plan the secondary payer or that would operate to carve out of the plan's coverage an amount equivalent to the Medicare payment that would be made if the services were provided by a provider to whom payment would be made under Part A or Part B of Medicare is not a permissible ground for refusing or reducing payment as the primary payer to VA by the third-party payer unless the provision expressly disallows payment as the primary payer to all providers to whom payment would not be made under Medicare (including payment under Part A, Part B, a Medicare HMO, or a Medicare Advantage plan).
(vi) A third-party payer may not refuse or reduce third-party payment to VA because VA's claim form did not report hospital acquired conditions (HAC) or present on admission conditions (POA). VA is exempt from the Medicare Inpatient prospective payment system and the Medicare rules for reporting POA or HAC information to third-party payers.
(vii) Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) may not exclude claims or refuse to certify emergent and urgent services provided within the HMO's service area or otherwise covered non-emergency services provided out of the HMO's service area. In addition, opt-out or point-of-service options available under an HMO plan may not exclude services otherwise payable under 38 U.S.C. 1729 or this part.
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA on August 3, 2010, for parallel processing. The proposed revision modifies Tennessee's SIP to address the required maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards for the Nashville, Tennessee 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area, hereafter referred to as “the Nashville Area.” The Nashville Area is comprised of Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties in their entireties. This maintenance plan was submitted to EPA by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to ensure the continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) through the year 2018 in the Nashville Area. EPA is approving the SIP revision pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This maintenance plan meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements, and is consistent with EPA's guidance.
Comments must be received on or before November 8, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0663, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Royce Dansby-Sparks, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9187. Mr. Dansby-Sparks can also be reached via electronic mail at
In accordance with the CAA, the Nashville Area was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on November 6, 1991, 56 FR 56694 (effective January 6, 1992, 60 FR 7124). On November 14, 2004, the State of Tennessee, through the TDEC, submitted a request to redesignate the Nashville Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (
On October 30, 1996, EPA approved Tennessee's request to redesignate the Nashville Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (61 FR 55903). The maintenance plan for the Area became effective on October 30, 1996. Tennessee later updated the maintenance plan in accordance with section 175(A)(b) on August 10, 2005, to extend the maintenance plan to cover
On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final Phase 1 Rule for implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951) (Phase 1 Rule), ultimately revoking the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Nashville Area, however, was still required to fulfill requirements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to its participation in an Early Action Compact (EAC). For areas participating in an EAC, the effective designation date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was deferred until December 31, 2006, in a final action published by EPA on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50988) and later extended to April 15, 2008 (71 FR 69022) for most of the EAC Areas, including Nashville, so long as the Area continued to meet milestone requirements. Therefore, the requirement for an attainment area to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the Phase 1 Rule was also postponed until the Area was effectively designated for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Nashville Area was later designated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective April 15, 2008, with the 1-hour ozone requirements no longer effective on April 15, 2009 (73 FR 17897). The attainment area was consequently required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the Phase 1 Rule.
On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance providing information on how a state might fulfill the maintenance plan obligation established by the CAA and the Phase 1 Rule (Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division Directors,
EPA is proposing to take action to approve Tennessee's August 3, 2010, SIP revision, submitted for parallel processing, which satisfy CAA section 110(a)(1) CAA requirements for a plan providing for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Nashville Area.
On August 3, 2010, the State of Tennessee, through the TDEC and the Metro Nashville/Davidson County Pollution Control Division Office, submitted a proposed SIP revision for parallel processing containing the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Nashville Area as required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule (
The August 3, 2010, SIP revision is not yet state-effective, therefore, Tennessee has requested that EPA “parallel process” the SIP revision. Under this procedure, the Regional Office works closely with the state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the
After Tennessee submits the formal state-effective SIP revision request (including a response to all public comments raised during the state's public participation process, and the 1997 8-hour ozone 110(a)(1) maintenance plan), EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice for the SIP revision. If Tennessee's rulemaking to address the 1997 8-hour ozone 110(a)(1) maintenance plan contains changes which occur after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such change must be described in EPA's final rulemaking action. If Tennessee's changes are significant, EPA must decide whether it is appropriate to repropose action on the state's changes to their submittal to address the 1997 8-hour ozone 110(a)(1) maintenance plan.
As required, the plan provides for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Nashville Area for at least 10 years from the effective date of this Area's designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The plan also includes components illustrating how the Area will continue attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provides contingency measures. The Section 110(a)(1) plan components are discussed below for the Nashville Area.
(a)
In accordance with Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule requirements (CERR), Tennessee compiles a statewide emissions inventory for point sources on an annual basis. On-road mobile emissions of VOC and NO
In projecting data for the maintenance year 2018 emissions inventories, Tennessee used several methods to project data from the base year 2007 to the interim years 2010, 2014, and 2018. These projected inventories were developed using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies including the Southeastern Emissions Modeling, Analysis, and Planning methodology. Projected point, area, and non-road mobile source inventories were developed using the 2007 base year inventories and economic growth
The following tables provide VOC and NO
As shown in Table 2 above, the Nashville Area is projected to steadily decrease its total VOC and NO
The attainment inventories submitted by Tennessee for this Area are consistent with the criteria as discussed in the Wegman Memorandum. EPA finds that the future emission levels for the projected years 2010, 2014, and 2018, are expected to be less than the attainment level emissions in 2007. In
(b)
Tennessee's SIP revision for the maintenance plan for the Nashville Area also relies on the closure of large parts of the operations of E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company located in Davidson County resulting in significant reductions of both VOC and NO
(c)
All NO
(d)
The maximum design value for 2007 through 2009 identified in Table 3 demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at a level of 0.079 parts per million (ppm). Further, these design values indicate that the Nashville maintenance Area is expected to continue attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on a gradual decrease in the design values. The attainment level for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards is 0.080 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm with the rounding convention. In the event that a design value for the Nashville Area monitors exceed the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, one or more contingency measures included in Tennessee's maintenance plan would be promptly implemented in accordance with the contingency plan, as discussed below.
(e)
These contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA's long-standing guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of continued attainment. Continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Nashville Area will depend, in part, on the air quality measures discussed previously (see section II). In addition, the State of Tennessee and Metro Nashville/Davidson County Pollution Control Division Office commit to verify the 1997 8-hour ozone status in this maintenance plan through periodic ozone precursor emission inventory updates. Emission inventory updates will be completed by 18 months following the end of the inventory year to verify continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the Nashville Area, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, on August 3, 2010. The maintenance plan ensures continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the maintenance year 2018. EPA has evaluated Tennessee's submittal and has preliminarily determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy.
On March 12, 2008, EPA issued revised ozone NAAQS. On September 16, 2009, EPA announced it would reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for ozone and proposed a new schedule for designations for the reconsidered NAAQS. The current action, however, is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Requirements for the Nashville Area under the 2010 reconsidered ozone NAAQS will be addressed in the future.
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 CAA; 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 proposed 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Announcement of meeting.
The purpose of this document is to announce EPA's intent to hold several public “listening sessions” in October and November 2010 and to request input from the public on Chesapeake Bay-specific provisions of a new stormwater rulemaking. On December 28, 2009, EPA issued a
EPA is now soliciting input specifically on potential provisions of this stormwater rulemaking with respect to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with several public “listening sessions” to be held in October and November 2010, and an interactive Webcast scheduled for November 16, 2010. EPA seeks input on whether to consider, among other things, the following: Regulating additional stormwater discharges not
As part of the listening sessions, EPA will also address environmental justice considerations and potential impacts and benefits that may arise as a consequence of the rulemaking. EPA invites the public to participate in these environmental justice discussions to provide feedback and share ideas related to stormwater management.
Written comments and any supporting data must be submitted on or before December 7, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For further information on this document, contact Rachel Herbert, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.: 202-564-2649 or e-mail:
• October 26, 2010, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the listening session and 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for the environmental justice discussion at Radisson Plaza Lord Baltimore 20 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201.
• October 28, 2010, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. for the listening session and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. for the environmental justice discussion at Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay 100 Heron Blvd. Cambridge, MD 21613.
• November 4, 2010, Washington, DC, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. for environmental justice discussion and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. for the listening session at 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
• November 9, 2010, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the listening session and 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for the environmental justice discussion at Omni Richmond Hotel 100 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219.
• November 17, 2010, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the listening session and 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for the environmental justice discussion at Forum Building 5th & Walnut Harrisburg, PA.
• November 16, 2010, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. EST, Visit
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
3.
You may submit input electronically, by mail, through hand delivery/courier, or in person by attending one of the five listening sessions. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your input. Please ensure that your input is submitted within the specified comment period.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (publicly owned conveyances or systems of conveyances that discharge to waters of the U.S. and are designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, are not combined sewers, and are not part of a publicly owned treatment works), stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, and stormwater discharges from construction sites of one acre or larger. See 40 CFR 122.26(a). Under EPA's regulations, these stormwater discharges are required to be covered by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. EPA developed the stormwater regulations under section 402(p) in two
EPA published the final Phase I rule on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990). See 40 CFR 122.26. The Phase I rule, among other things, defined “stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity” to include construction sites of five acres or larger. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x).
In the second phase, under section 402(p)(5) and (6), EPA was required to conduct a study to identify other stormwater discharges that needed further controls to protect water quality, report to Congress on the results of the study, and to designate for regulation additional categories of stormwater discharges not regulated in Phase I. EPA promulgated the Phase II rule on December 8, 1999, designating small MS4s in Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas and small construction sites (1-5 acres) and requiring NPDES permits for these discharges. 64 FR 68722.
With respect to MS4s, the Phase I regulations are primarily application requirements that identify components that must be addressed in permit applications from large and medium MS4s. The regulations require these MS4s to develop a stormwater management program (SWMP), track and oversee industrial facilities regulated under the NPDES stormwater program, conduct monitoring, and submit periodic reports. Under the Phase II rule, regulated small MS4s are generally defined as any MS4 that is not already covered by the Phase I program and that are located within the urbanized area boundary as determined by the U.S. Decennial Census. Separate storm sewer systems such as those serving military bases, universities, large hospital or prison complexes, and highways are also included in the definition of “small MS4.” 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16). In addition, a small MS4 located outside of an urbanized area may be designated as a regulated small MS4 if the NPDES permitting authority determines that its discharges cause, or have the potential to cause, an adverse impact on water quality. See 40 CFR 122.32(a)(2), 123.35(b)(3).
Phase II stormwater regulations also require that the MS4, under the permit, implement stormwater management programs (SWMPs), and require that the SWMPs include six minimum control measures. The minimum control measures are: Public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction runoff control, and pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Regulations applicable to Phase II MS4 permits are found in 40 CFR 122.30-122.37. In general, Phase II MS4 permits are general permits, although small MS4s may apply for individual permits under the Phase I rule's application provisions in 40 CFR 122.26(d).
Under section 402(p)(6), EPA is authorized to designate additional stormwater discharges to be regulated other than those already regulated, and to establish a comprehensive program to regulate them. In addition, under EPA's stormwater regulations, EPA (or States authorized to administer the NPDES program) may require NPDES permits for currently unregulated stormwater discharges by designating discharges pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) or (D).
By today's notice, EPA is informing the public of its preliminary considerations for modifying or supplementing EPA's stormwater regulations to specifically address stormwater discharges in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and soliciting public input on these considerations. EPA is accepting information during the listening sessions and/or by submission of written comments as described above in order to gain early public input on stormwater practices and regulations and to inform the stormwater rulemaking. The following are options that EPA is considering for strengthening the stormwater requirements and for which EPA seeks input. These options are not mutually exclusive and may be considered in combination.
As part of the listening sessions, EPA will also address environmental justice considerations and potential impacts that may arise as a consequence of the Chesapeake Bay watershed provisions under consideration in the new rulemaking. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help achieve EPA's goals for environmental justice, EPA places particular emphasis on the public health of and environmental conditions affecting minority, low-income, and indigenous populations.
EPA solicits comment for these preliminary Chesapeake Bay watershed specific provisions to assess whether they will have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. The Agency plans to discuss ways that local communities can identify areas of concern and incorporate “low impact development” (LID) or “green infrastructure” practices into their stormwater management regimes. These practices, such as rain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, and pervious pavements, use infiltration, evapotranspiration, and stormwater capture and reuse to maintain or restore natural hydrologies, in order to lessen the environmental impacts of stormwater and improve public access to clean waters to improve livability. EPA is working with all stakeholders to strengthen its stormwater program and support communities in efforts to restore and maintain their urban waterbodies. Priorities for this effort include helping communities—especially underserved communities—access, improve, and benefit from their waters and the surrounding land.
EPA requests that participants in the listening sessions' environmental justice component share their ideas on the following questions focusing on stormwater issues:
•
•
•
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on proposed information collection. This collection is an extension, without change, of a currently approved collection for Form FNS-46, Issuance Reconciliation Report, which concerns benefit issuance operations in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Written comments must be received on or before December 7, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to: Andrea Gold, Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Benefit Redemption Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 403, Alexandria, VA 22302; FAX number (703) 305-1863; or via e-mail to:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Andrea Gold, Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch at (703) 305-2456.
With all States implementing EBT systems, the State have generally reduced the time they spend on reconciling SNAP benefit issuance and completing the FNS-46. Therefore, there is a corresponding reduction in the burden of collecting the FNS-46 data.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of bees and related articles.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 7, 2010.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on regulations for the importation of bees and related articles, contact Dr. Colin Stewart, Senior Entomologist, Pest Permit Evaluations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-0774. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Further, the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701
The establishment of certain bee diseases, parasites, or undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees in the United States could cause substantial reductions in pollination by bees. These reductions could cause serious damage to crops and other plants and result in substantial financial losses to American agriculture.
Regulations for the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen and regulations to prevent the introduction of exotic bee diseases and parasites through the importation of bees other than honeybees, certain beekeeping products, and used beekeeping equipment are contained in 7 CFR part 322, “Bees, Beekeeping Byproducts, and Beekeeping Equipment.” These regulations require the use of certain information collection activities, including: An application for permit, appeals for denial of permit application and cancellation of permit, request for risk assessment, inspection report of containment facilities, request for release of containment, transit documentation, export certificate, notice of arrival, packaging and labeling, and recordkeeping by containment facilities.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Manti-La Sal National Forest Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Price, Utah. The Committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to hold the second meeting of the newly formed Committee.
The meeting will be held October 20, 2010, and will begin at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held in the conference room of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Building, 319 North Carbonville Road, Price, Utah. Written comments should be sent to Rosann Fillmore, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Price, UT 84501. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Price, UT 84501. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 435-636-3525 to facilitate entry into the building.
Rosann Fillmore, RAC coordinator, USDA, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Price, UT 84501; 435-636-3525; E-mail
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Consideration of Proposal Forms, (2) Development of Proposal Review Process, (3) Development of Guidelines, (4) Public comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by September 15, 2010 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 6 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
October 13, 2010.
Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 U.S. Hwy 2, Libby, Montana.
Janette Turk, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7764, or e-mail
Agenda will include review of 2010 project proposals and 2008-09 project status. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a supplemental request for “partial deregulation” or similar administrative action from the Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG for the planting, harvesting, and interstate movement of Roundup Ready® sugar beets under measures designed to ensure any risks posed by cultivation are mitigated. This notice is to inform the public of the availability of the documents submitted to the Agency from Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG requesting a “partial deregulation.”
You may view the request for “partial deregulation” on the Regulations.gov Web site (
Mr. Rick Coker, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 146, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5720. To obtain copies of the supplemental request for “partial deregulation,” contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667,
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
On October 19, 2004, APHIS published a notice in the
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a ruling in a lawsuit filed by two organic seed groups and two nonprofit organizations challenging our decision to deregulate sugar beet event H7-1 (referred to in the lawsuit as Roundup Ready® sugar beet, or “RRSB”), pursuant to the Plant Protection Act (PPA) and in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
On August 13, 2010, the Court vacated the deregulation determination, remanding the issue back to APHIS. RRSB is therefore once again a regulated article under 7 CFR part 340, and Monsanto and KWS have submitted a supplemental request for “partial deregulation” or similar administrative action for RRSB, along with an accompanying “Environmental Report,” to allow the future planting, harvesting, and interstate movement of RRSB crops (both seed and root) under conditions designed to ensure any risks posed by the introduction of these sugar beets into the environment are thoroughly mitigated.
APHIS is evaluating this supplemental request and developing appropriate environmental analyses to inform its decisionmaking in reference to any APHIS decision or decisions to authorize future seed and root crop plantings under a combination of permits, administrative orders, or other regulatory options and measures. APHIS is considering regulatory options and measures that would include mitigating measures consistent with those it had proposed to the Court as interim measures while APHIS completes the EIS for the petition for determination of non-regulated status for RRSB. APHIS anticipates making a decision on the supplemental petition for “partial deregulation” and on other appropriate interim regulatory actions related to RRSB by the end of the year. There will be an opportunity for public comment on any environmental analyses developed for such decision or decisions. APHIS is notifying the public that its receipt of this supplemental request for “partial deregulation” and this notice to the public regarding it in no way indicates that the Agency agrees with the petitioners' description, application, or implementation of a “partial deregulation.” Such matters and related issues are solely determined by APHIS pursuant to its PPA statutory authority and its biotechnology regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995. Comments are requested concerning:(a) Whether the proposed or continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the burden estimates; (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.
Submit comments on or before December 7, 2010.
Beverly Johnson, Bureau for Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07-106, RRB, Washington, DC 20523, (202) 712-1365 or via e-mail
Send comments via e-mail at
USAID must track training data for all foreign nationals who receive training funded by USAID. In cases where foreign nationals must travel to the U.S. to participate in training or invitational travel, the approvals for the eligibility to obtain the J visa are captured in the Visa Compliance System (VCS). The Visa Compliance system has two purposes: first, to secure a J-1 visa for these foreign nationals traveling to the U.S.; second, to enable USAID to be in compliance with external requirements of the Department of Homeland Security. With certain exceptions, the foreign nationals that USAID sponsors for travel to the U.S. are considered exchange visitors. The VCS provides an audit trail regarding each exchange visitor, his or her training program or circumstances, as well as other relevant documentation.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 10, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan.
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On June 10, 2010, the Department published in the
The deadline for the final results of this administrative review is October 8, 2010.
The merchandise covered by this order is certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are defined as: Welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, with walls not thinner than 0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 inches in outside diameter, currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.
As discussed in the
We found 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Yieh Phui made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for Yieh Phui and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no matches to home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared export prices to constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memorandum) from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 30, 2010, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the two issues which parties raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 7046 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no changes in the margin calculations.
We determine the following percentage margin exists for the period May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has calculated an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
Because Yieh Phui did not report the entered value of its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of each importer (or customer) and dividing each of these amounts by the respective quantities (by weight) associated with those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review for each importer (or customer) for which the importer-specific (or customer-specific)
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that an EFP application from the University of New England (UNE) contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow three commercial fishing vessels to possess spiny dogfish (dogfish) during Federal quota closures in support of a study on their reproductive biology. The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on EFP applications.
Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2010.
Comments may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management Specialist,
The EFP would exempt federally permitted commercial fishing vessels from dogfish closures while conducting research for the University of New England. The EFP would temporarily exempt participating vessels from dogfish quota closures, in limited situations for research purposes only, to retain dogfish that would otherwise be prohibited. No dogfish will be landed for sale when the fishery is closed.
The FMP implemented a semi-annual quota for the commercial dogfish fishery; when a semi-annual quota is projected to be harvested, NMFS closes the fishery until the next semi-annual quota opens. During a dogfish closure, no vessel may fish for or possess dogfish. A dogfish closure is currently in effect through October 31, 2010.
As part of a continuing research project, UNE is investigating the reproductive biology of dogfish along the U.S. Atlantic coast. UNE will investigate previously observed regional anomalies in dogfish reproductive biology. Investigators from UNE aim to update information known on the gestation period for dogfish; in particular whether the current estimate of 22 months for gestation has been overestimated. Data from the research would provide more detailed life history information on dogfish that could potentially be used to fine tune stock assessments and management plans for dogfish in the Northwest Atlantic.
The applicant would collect 150 female dogfish samples per month (one year total), 50 each from the Gulf of Maine (GOM), waters off New Jersey (NJ), and waters off North Carolina (NC). The total number of dogfish landed under this EFP would not exceed 1,800 individuals. Samples would be collected during regular commercial fishing operations, in areas open to commercial fishing for species other than spiny dogfish. Vessels would fish
Participating vessels would be exempt from the spiny dogfish fishery closure regulations at 50 CFR 648.231 and required to comply with all other applicable requirements and restrictions specified at 50 CFR part 648.
The applicant may make requests to NMFS for minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted by NMFS without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, a Categorical Exclusion or other appropriate NEPA document would be completed prior to the issuance of the EFP. Further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. After publication of this document in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will meet in open session on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Eastern daylight savings time.
The meeting will convene Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 3:15 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Measurement Laboratory, Building 215, Room C103, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Rene Cesaro, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2162. Ms. Cesaro's e-mail address is
The Technology Innovation Program (TIP) Advisory Board is composed of ten members appointed by the Director of NIST who are eminent in such fields as business, research, science and technology, engineering, education, and management consulting. The purpose of this meeting is to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the Technology Innovation Program, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include a TIP update, a presentation on the TIP critical national need process, and a discussion of potential critical national need areas for future funding. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the TIP Web site at:
All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Rene Cesaro no later than Friday, October 29, 2010, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Ms. Cesaro's e-mail address is
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public hearings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public hearings regarding Amendment 18A to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic.
A series of 3 public hearings will be held October 25 through October 27, 2010. The hearings will be open from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record at any time during the meeting hours to record their comments on the public hearing topics for Council consideration. Written comments will be received in the South Atlantic Council's office until 5 p.m. on November 12, 2010.
Amendment 18A to the Snapper Grouper FMP contains the following management actions: (1) Limit participation in the golden tilefish fishery through an endorsement program, (2) allocate commercial golden tilefish quota between gear groups, (3) establish criteria for transferability of golden tilefish endorsements, (4) change the commercial golden tilefish fishing year, (5) change the golden tilefish commercial trip limit, (6) establish trip limits for commercial fishermen who do not receive and endorsement in the golden tilefish fishery, (7) modify the commercial black sea bass fishery to limit participation and effort and reduce bycatch, and (8) improve the accuracy, timing, and quality of fisheries data.
The public hearings will be held at the following locations:
1. October 25, 2010—Hilton New Bern Riverfront, 100 Middle Street, New Bern, NC 28562, telephone: (252) 638-3585;
2. October 26, 2010—Hilton Garden Inn, 5265 International Blvd., North Charleston, SC 29418, telephone: (843) 308-9330;
3. October 27, 2010—Hampton Inn Daytona Speedway, 1715 W. International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, telephone: (386) 257-4030.
Written comments should be sent to Bob Mahood, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405, or via e-mail to:
Written comments must be received in the South Atlantic Council's office by 5 p.m. on November 12, 2010.
Copies of the public hearing document are available from Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free at (866) SAFMC-10. Copies will also be available online at
Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366; fax: (843) 769-4520; e-mail address:
These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, ore-mail
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Wednesday, October 13, 2010; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the Public.
Compliance Status Report
The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. Seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or e-mail at
EPA ICR Number 2370.02; Ambient Oxides of Sulfur Monitoring Regulations: Revisions to Network Design Requirements (Final Rule); 40 CFR part 58; was approved on 09/02/2010; OMB Number 2060-0642; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1188.10; TSCA Section 5(a); 40 CFR parts 3, 700, 720, 721, 723 and 725, was approved on 09/07/2010; OMB Number 2070-0038; expires on 11/30/2012; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0574.14; Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances; 40 CFR parts 3, 700, 720, 721, 723 and 725, 40 CFR 720.36, 40 CFR 720.38, 40 CFR 720.40, 40 CFR 723.50, 40 CFR 723.175, 40 CFR 725.15, 40 CFR 725.190, 40 CFR
EPA ICR Number 2096.04; NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE; was approved on 09/20/2010; OMB Number 2060-0543; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1963.04; NESHAP for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Facilities; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE; was approved on 09/20/2010; OMB Number 2060-0539; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2213.03; Control of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal); 40 CFR part 59, subpart F; was approved on 09/20/2010; OMB Number 2060-0597; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1844.04; NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU; was approved on 09/20/2010; OMB Number 2060-0554; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2390.01; Internet Survey Research for Improving Fuel Economy Label Design and Content; was approved on 09/24/2010; OMB Number 2060-0643; expires on 03/31/2011; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1780.05; Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA Submissions; was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2070-0156; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2080.04; Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees (Renewal); 40 CFR part 1027; was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2060-0545; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0309.13; Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Requirements for Manufacturers (Renewal); 40 CFR part 79 subparts B and C; 40 CFR part 79.5; 49 CFR part 79 subparts B and C; was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2060-0150; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1659.07; NESHAP for Gasoline Distribution Facilities; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R; was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2060-0325; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2045.04; NESHAP for Automobile and Light-duty Truck Surface Coating; 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII; was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2060-0550; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1967.04; NESHAP for Stationary Combustion Turbines; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY; was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2060-0540; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0010.12; Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles (Renewal); 19 CFR 12.73, 12.74, and 85.1501, 19 CFR part 85, subparts P and R, was approved on 09/28/2010; OMB Number 2060-0095; expires on 09/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2028.05; NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources; in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD; OMB filed comment on 09/20/2010.
EPA ICR Number 2385.01; Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD; OMB filed comment on 09/20/2010.
EPA ICR Number 2253.01; NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources; in 40 CFR 63.6, 63.10, 63.11205, 63.11222, 63.11225, 63.11226, 63.11227 and 63.11228; OMB filed comment on 09/20/2010.
EPA ICR Number 2384.01; NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units; in 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC; OMB filed comment on 09/20/2010.
EPA ICR Number 2382.01; Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR 260.22 and 260.31(c); OMB filed comment on 09/20/2010.
EPA ICR Number 1189.22; Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR 261.31, 260.34, 261.2(a)(2)ii and 261.4(a)23-25, OMB filed comment on 09/20/2010. EPA ICR Number 2391.01; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR parts 51, 75, 96 and 97, OMB filed comment on 09/30/2010.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 8, 2010.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0367 to (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 2, 2010 (75
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0367, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Two features of this rulemaking are unique to the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) program. First, these standards were negotiated by representatives of groups affected by the NSPS, including those groups which are burdened by the information collection activities. These representatives judged none of these activities unreasonable. The affected groups recommended some of these provisions as a means of promoting an efficient and smooth running certification and enforcement program. Second, these regulations established a certification program instead of the usual NSPS requirement that each affected facility demonstrated compliance through new source review and testing. Under this certification program, a single wood heater is tested to demonstrate compliance for an entire model line which could consist of thousands of stoves. The certification approach significantly reduces the compliance burden, including information collection, for the manufacturers of wood heaters. Because of the potential risks to the environment from the intentional or accidental misuse of the certification approach, there were several safeguards included, some of which entail reporting and recordkeeping.
Under this regulation, wood heater manufacturers, testing laboratories, and retailers are required to submit reports to EPA and/or to maintain records for demonstrating compliance with the NSPS.
The information supplied by the manufacturer to the Agency is used to: (1) Ensure that Best Demonstrated Technology is being applied to reduce emissions from wood heaters; (2) ensure that the wood heater tested for certification purposes is in compliance with the applicable emission standards; (3) provide assurance that interested production model heaters have emission performance characteristics similar to tested models; and (4) provide an indicator of continued compliance.
Information supplied to the Agency by testing laboratories is used to either grant or to deny laboratory accreditation, and to assist in enforcement and compliance activities. Information requested by the Agency from manufacturers is used to determine compliance with requirements that are based upon volume of production.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations are list in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to make its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies public. Historically, EPA has met this mandate by publishing weekly notices of availability of EPA comments, which includes a brief summary of EPA's comment letters, in the
This document is available on the Internet at:
This document is available on the Internet at
Revision to FR Notice Published 09/17/2010: Extending Comment Period from 10/18/2010 to 11/17/2010.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, augmented, to discuss its advice on the effectiveness of shipboard ballast water treatment processes and ways to improve future assessments of ballast water treatment systems to minimize the impacts of invasive species in vessel ballast water discharge.
The teleconference dates are October 26, 2010, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public wishing to obtain general information concerning this public teleconference should contact Ms. Iris Goodman, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail: (202) 564-2164; fax: (202) 565-2098; or e-mail at
The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the augmented SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee will hold two public teleconferences to discuss their preliminary advice.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces Agency approval of applications submitted by Arkema, Inc., to conditionally register the pesticide products Paladin Technical, Paladin, and Paladin EC containing a new active ingredient not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
John Bazuin, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7381; 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
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0092. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific information used to support registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Such requests should: Identify the product name and registration number and specify the data or information desired.
A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; and that use of the pesticide is in the public interest. The Agency has considered the available data on the risks associated with the proposed use of dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be derived from such use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety determinations which show that use of DMDS during the period of conditional registration will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, and that use of the pesticide is in the public interest.
Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA, the Agency has determined that these conditional registrations are in the public interest. Use of the pesticides are of significance to the user community, and appropriate labeling, use directions, and other measures have been taken to ensure that use of the pesticides will not result in unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment.
EPA issued a notice, published in the
1. Paladin Technical, a manufacturing-use product for formulation of pre-plant soil fumigant end-use products (EPA File Symbol 55050-G), containing 99.8% dimethyl disulfide, an active ingredient not included in any previously registered product;
2. Paladin, an end-use product for pre-plant soil fumigant use (EPA File Symbol 55050-U), containing 98.8% dimethyl disulfide; and
3. Paladin EC, an end-use product for pre-plant soil fumigant use (EPA File Symbol 55050-L), containing 93.8% dimethyl disulfide.
The following dimethyl disulfide product applications were conditionally approved on July 9, 2010:
i. The manufacturing-use product Paladin Technical (EPA Registration Number 55050-3).
ii. The end-use product Paladin (EPA Registration Number 55050-4) for pre-plant soil fumigant use on soil that will be used to grow fruiting vegetable (tomato, pepper, and eggplant), cucurbit vegetable (cucumber, squash (all types), and melon (all types)), small fruit (blueberry and strawberry), ornamental (field grown), and forest nursery crops.
iii. The end-use product Paladin EC (EPA Registration Number 55050-5) for pre-plant soil fumigant use on soil that will be used to grow fruiting vegetable (tomato, pepper, and eggplant), cucurbit vegetable (cucumber, squash (all types), and melon (all types)), small fruit (blueberry and strawberry), ornamental (field grown), and forest nursery crops.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pests and pesticides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval and Solicitation of Requests for a Public Hearing.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provision of section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, and the requirements governing the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation, 40 CFR Part 142, that the Commonwealth of Virginia is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. The Commonwealth has adopted the Arsenic Rule which will provide for better public health protection by lowering the maximum contaminant level (MCL) from 0.05 to 0.010 mg/L and by demonstrating monitoring compliance for new systems or sources of drinking water. EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. EPA is taking action to tentatively approve these program revisions. All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing.
Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted by November 8, 2010. This determination shall become effective on November 8, 2010 if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect on his own to hold a hearing, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its tentative approval.
Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
• Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
• Office of Drinking Water, Virginia Department of Health, Madison Building, 6th Floor, 109 Governor Street, Room 632, Richmond, VA 23219.
Michelle Hoover, Drinking Water Branch at the Philadelphia address given above; telephone (215) 814-5258 or fax (215) 814-2318.
All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing. All comments will be considered, and, if necessary, EPA will issue a response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by November 8, 2010, a public hearing will be held. A request for public hearing shall include the following: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such a hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making the request; or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Tuesday, October 5,2010, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 25, 2010.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1. Clay P. Graham, individually, and with Bryan H. Graham, both of Zanesville, Ohio, and the Estate of James F. Graham, Zanesville, Ohio, acting in concert; to acquire voting shares of North Valley Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares and control of the North Valley Bank, both of Zanesville, Ohio.
Federal Trade Commission.
Request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on a proposed statement of enforcement policy regarding communications in connection with collection of a decedent's debts.
Public comments must be received by November 8, 2010.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the Invitation To Comment part of the
Christopher Koegel or Quisaira Whitney, Attorneys, Division of Financial Practices, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3224.
Media reports and a Congressional inquiry have raised concerns that some debt collectors may be violating federal consumer protection laws when they attempt to collect debts from the relatives of deceased debtors (“decedents”).
Staff also has investigated whether collectors have engaged in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act or Sections 807 or 808 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f, in collecting or attempting to collect on decedents' debts. In particular, staff has evaluated whether collectors may have deceived relatives of decedents or others about their obligation to pay the decedent's debts.
Although these investigations have been closed, they revealed that, because of the interaction of the FDCPA and state probate laws, there is a great deal of uncertainty among collectors regarding who the proper persons are with whom they lawfully may discuss a decedent's debt. In their efforts to identify the person who is responsible for paying the decedent's debts, collectors in many cases have contacted persons other than those who fall within the definition of “consumer” set forth in Section 805(d) of the FDCPA.
Section 805(b) of the FDCPA was enacted in 1977 to specify, among other things, the persons whom collectors may contact to seek payment for the debts of decedents. Since that time, however, probate law and practice have evolved. Many states have streamlined their probate law and practice by, among other things, recognizing informal probate processes and independent estate administration with little or no court supervision. In addition, a sizable portion of decedents' assets often now are transferred to others outside of the probate process through techniques such as placing assets in trust or naming an individual (rather than the decedent's estate) as the beneficiary of the decedent's life insurance policies.
In response to these developments, the Commission is publishing this proposed enforcement policy statement (“Statement”) to clarify how it intends to enforce the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with the collection of decedents' debts.
When a consumer dies, his or her assets are transferred to others. These transfers take place either as part of the distribution of the decedent's estate or outside of the estate. Assets that pass outside of the estate include: (1) those that are jointly owned by the decedent and another person;
Probate practices are administered under state laws and procedures that vary significantly. Nineteen states
Probate law seeks to provide finality to those with a purported interest in estate assets by first distributing those assets to pay the funeral and estate administration expenses and family allowances, decedent's taxes, and creditors' allowed claims, and then distributing the remaining assets to beneficiaries as specified by a will, or heirs as specified by state intestacy laws. The Uniform Probate Code and similar state laws have created a “flexible system of administration” designed to provide persons interested in decedents' estates with the level of procedural and adjudicative safeguards as desired and appropriate for their circumstances.
Formal probate and administration requires a court-appointed executor (a person designated in the will by the decedent) or administrator (if no executor has been designated) to assume the responsibility of managing, distributing, and closing the estate, including collecting the decedent's assets and notifying creditors of the pending probate proceeding. Formal probate entails court supervision and approval of all or part of the probate proceeding and imposes significant reporting requirements on the executor or administrator. Most state probate laws require that formal probate and administration be used if either the ability of the executor named in the will to administer the estate is uncertain or there is concern that the beneficiaries (such as minors) cannot look after their own interests. In addition, most state laws require that formal probate and administration be used if someone (such as a beneficiary or a creditor) asserts the right to invoke probate procedures to protect his or her interest in the estate.
Formal probate and administration is designed to provide notice, opportunity to participate, and finality to all who assert a claim to the estate's assets. To this end, the executor or administrator must attempt to notify creditors of the decedent's death and the deadline for submitting any claims against the estate. In addition to mailing notice to all known creditors, many states require that notice be published multiple times in a newspaper having general circulation in the city where the decedent lived or in the county where the probate proceedings are being held.
Creditors have a fixed period of time to file a claim, after which all claims are barred. If the claim is approved, the bill is paid out of the estate; if it is rejected, the creditor may sue for payment. If there are not enough liquid assets to pay all debts, property in the estate may have to be sold to pay approved creditor claims. State laws vary as to the order in which debts are paid.
Although formal probate and administration has advantages in terms of ensuring that all persons with an interest in the estate have an opportunity to assert their interests, it also can be time-consuming and expensive.
States that have adopted the UPC also have what is described as an “informal probate and administration” process, which is available regardless of the size of the estate.
To begin the informal probate and administration process, a person must apply to the probate registrar for an informal appointment as executor or administrator. Thereafter, many states refer to this person as the “personal representative.” Once appointed, the personal representative has official authority to act on behalf of the estate. Among other things, the personal representative must arrange for publication of notice of the appointment as well as notice to creditors.
Under the UPC, creditors have four months from the date of first publication of the notice of appointment in which to file any claims against the estate, after which they become time-barred.
The UPC and similar state laws provide an alternative to formal or
Many states offer two alternatives to the procedures described above for distributing the assets of small estates: (a) an out-of-court affidavit procedure, which lets beneficiaries claim assets from whomever has possession of them by presenting a sworn statement explaining why they are entitled to the property; and (b) summary administration, which is similar to informal probate and administration. These procedures are designed to make it easier and less expensive for consumers to resolve small estates—in most cases, they take only a month or two, have minimal court involvement, require few filings, and do not entail attorneys' fees—and also reduce the administrative and financial burdens on states and counties. According to the UPC commenters, most people are able to use the “small estate” procedures to resolve estates.
Many states allow for small estate assets to be distributed through an affidavit process, eliminating altogether the need for appointment of an executor or administrator or for probate court administration.
The transfer affidavit typically must state that: (1) The claimant is legally entitled to inherit the decedent's assets; (2) the value of the entire estate, less liens, does not exceed the maximum amount permitted by state law; (3) a minimum number of days (often 30 to 45) has elapsed since the death; and (4) no petition for the appointment of an executor or administrator is pending or has been granted by a probate court.
Summary administration procedures generally are very similar to informal probate and administration procedures—they require little court involvement or supervision and can be used whether or not the decedent left a will. Summary administration, however, is limited to small estates, as defined by state law, and requires less notice to creditors than informal probate.
Summary administration procedures are usually available if: (1) Assets do not exceed a specified value; (2) no interested party (such as a creditor) objects to the use of those procedures; and (3) a will does not mandate a different procedure. In Florida, for example, summary administration is available when the decedent's will does not direct otherwise, and either the value of assets subject to probate does not exceed $75,000 or the decedent has been dead for more than two years.
If an estate has only minimal assets, many survivors choose to forgo the use of any legal process to distribute a decedent's assets. An individual (usually a family member) may pay the decedent's debts out of the assets of the estate. It appears that a significant number of very small estates are resolved in this manner.
This method forgoes some of the benefits of the probate process, such as obtaining a final legal resolution and the barring, after a specified period of time, of claims of creditors against the assets of the estate. Thus, if a creditor or collector sues the individual who distributes the assets or the recipients of those assets, they are potentially liable to pay an unpaid debt of the decedent up to the amount of the estate's assets.
When Congress passed the FDCPA, it sought to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices, as well as unwarranted invasions of privacy.
Section 805(b) of the FDCPA, with certain exceptions, prohibits debt collectors from communicating with
Section 805(d) expands the definition of a “consumer” whom a collector can contact, but, for purposes of collecting on a deceased debtor's debts, only to those who are likely to be responsible for paying a decedent's debts out of the assets of the estate. Thus, Section 805(d) includes the debtor's “spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator” as persons the collector can contact about a debt. As discussed above, however, probate law and practice have evolved since Congress passed the FDCPA, and there are now additional categories of persons who have the authority to pay the decedent's debts from the assets of the estate. These include personal representatives under the informal probate and summary administration procedures of many states, persons appointed as universal successors, persons who sign declarations or affidavits to effectuate the transfer of estate assets, and persons who dispose of the decedent's assets extrajudicially.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the purposes of the FDCPA, and in the public interest, to allow debt collectors to communicate with the person who has authority to pay a decedent's debts from the assets of the estate, even if that person does not fall within the specific categories listed in Section 805(d). Such communications do not reveal the decedent's debts unnecessarily because they are made to an individual who has authority to pay those debts from the assets of the estate. Moreover, permitting such communications often would make it faster, simpler, and less expensive for consumers, creditors, and collectors to resolve the decedent's debts without unduly burdening the decedent's representative or beneficiaries. Such communication benefits both creditors and consumers by facilitating appropriate payments without the need for creditors to initiate formal probate administration or file actions in court to recover from individuals who have distributed the estate's assets, or received the assets that were distributed, without proper notice to creditors. But, when seeking payment for a decedent's debt from an individual not personally liable for the debt, in order to avoid creating the misimpression that the individual is personally liable for the decedent's debt, it may be necessary for the collector to disclose clearly and prominently that the collector is seeking payment from the estate and not the individual.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes a policy not to initiate enforcement actions against debt collectors who communicate about a decedent's debt with: (1) The executor or administrator of the decedent's estate; (2) the decedent's spouse; (3) a minor decedent's parent; (4) the decedent's guardian; or (5) a person who otherwise has authority to pay the debts of the decedent out of the decedent's assets, such as a personal representative under an informal or summary administration procedure, a person appointed as a universal successor, a person who signs a declaration or affidavit to effectuate the transfer of estate assets, or a person who assumes the responsibility of disposing of the decedent's assets extrajudicially.
Before communicating with any individual in connection with the collection of a decedent's debt, a collector must assess whether the potential recipient of any such communication has authority to pay the decedent's debts from the estate's assets (i.e., falls within one of the categories listed above). In many cases, the collector will know that it is contacting the decedent's spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person appointed by the probate court or the registrar to administer the decedent's estate. For example, the collector's review of the probate registrar's filings would identify persons who have been appointed as executor, administrator, personal representative under informal or summary administration, or universal successor. If the collector has identified the person with such authority, it may direct communications seeking collection of the debt to that person. In seeking to have these individuals pay the decedent's debts out of the decedent's estate, the collector must comply with all of the requirements of the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act with respect to collector communications with debtors. For instance, the collector is prohibited from threatening to use violence against these individuals in violation of Section 806 of the FDCPA, and from falsely representing to them the amount of the debt owed—or the assets that must be used to pay the debt—in violation of Section 807(2)(A) of the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
In some cases, even if a collector has reviewed probate court filings and records, the collector may not know who has the authority to pay the decedent's debts from the estate's assets. To locate the person with such authority, the collector may initiate a written or oral communication to the decedent's estate. The collector should state clearly and prominently at the outset that the communication is directed to the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate, or to the estate itself. But until a named individual with authority to pay the decedent's debts is identified and located, collectors generally should treat these communications as location communications under Section 804 of the FDCPA. The communication should state that the collector is seeking to identify and locate the person who has the authority to pay any outstanding bills of the decedent out of the decedent's estate,
When the debtor is deceased, however, the procedure becomes more complicated. The collector must first identify the person who has authority to pay the decedent's debts out of the estate's assets. In some cases, collectors will know who that person is, for example, if a court has named an executor or administrator; in these cases, the collector, if it needs contact information, can follow the normal process of seeking such information from a third party without revealing the debt.
If the collector does not know the identity of the person with authority to pay the decedent's debts from the estate, it may wish to contact third parties who may themselves have the requisite authority or know who does, and then seek location information for the person they identify. But, in asking a third party for identification and location information for a person with the requisite authority, the collector almost inevitably will have to state or imply that the decedent owed a debt, for example “I am trying to find the person who has the authority to pay John Smith's outstanding bills out of assets in John's estate.” The Commission is interested in comments on: (1) Whether such a limited and general reference to debt in these specific circumstances would result in harm to the decedent's privacy or reputation, especially given that even consumers who remained current on their debts while alive often have bills their estate must resolve after they pass away; (2) other appropriate ways of identifying the person with authority while minimizing any reference to the decedent's debts, consistent with Section 804(2); and (3) the relative costs and benefits of facilitating communications between collectors and individuals who have the authority to pay the decedent's debts, including, for example, the possible harm to the decedent's privacy interests from revealing the debt versus the possible benefits to consumers in fostering the efficient payment of debts without the costs and inconvenience of a formal probate process or litigation.
If the recipient of the location communication states with certainty that he or she has the requisite authority—and that assertion is not inconsistent with information reasonably available from another source (
In addition, if the initial communication recipient subsequently is appointed as the administrator or personal representative through formal or informal probate or files an affidavit under the ``small estate'' administration provisions, the collector then may contact that person in connection with the collection of the debt.
Finally, in communicating with persons who have the authority to pay the decedent's debts out of the estate's assets, the Commission emphasizes that it would violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 807 of the FDCPA to mislead those persons about whether they are personally liable for those debts, or about which assets a creditor could legally seek to satisfy those debts.
The Commission proposes to adopt a policy under which it would not take enforcement action against collectors who comply with the principles set forth in this Statement in collecting on a decedent's debts, as well as comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FDCPA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should state “Deceased Debt Collection Policy Statement” in the text and, if applicable, on the envelope.
The FTC will place your comment—including your name and your state—on
Because postal mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to heightened security screening, if possible, please submit your comments in electronic form or send them by courier or overnight service. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it at
A comment filed in paper form should include the reference “Deceased Debt Collection Policy Statement” in the text of the comment and, if applicable, on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive comments it receives. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at
By direction of the Commission.
Office of the Secretary, DHHS.
Notice with comment period.
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-351) directed HHS to establish assistance payment reimbursement rates for Indian Tribes, tribal organizations and tribal consortia participating in certain child welfare programs authorized under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. These reimbursement rates will be calculated in a manner similar to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rates used to reimburse States. This notice describes the Department's proposed methodology for calculating these rates.
Comments may be submitted via either regular mail or e-mail. If you submit written comments via regular mail, please send one original and one copy of your comments to the following address only: Department of Health and Human Services, Room 404-E, Attention: Tribal FMAP Notice, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Comments via e-mail should be sent to the following e-mail address:
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (“Fostering Connections Act”) [Pub. L. 110-351], authorizes Indian Tribes, tribal organizations and tribal consortia to receive funding directly for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Programs under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Such direct funding may begin in FY 2010 for Indian Tribes, tribal organizations or tribal consortia with approved title IV-E plans, or eligible Tribes may submit plans to operate such programs at any time in the future. Indian Tribes not operating their own programs may receive title IV-E funds through agreements with the States within which they are located, as authorized under prior law. To date, 86 Indian Tribes have submitted letters of intent to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) indicating an interest in operating title IV-E programs. Seven Indian Tribes have received title IV-E plan development grants intended to assist Indian Tribes to develop their programs and prepare an approvable title IV-E plan, and one Indian Tribe has submitted a title IV-E plan that is currently under review within ACF. Approximately 90 Indian Tribes currently operate programs under title IV-E agreements with States.
The Federal share of assistance payments for the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Programs is calculated using the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which is the match rate developed originally for use in the Medicaid Program. FMAP is calculated annually for each State by HHS according to a formula specified in statute (section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)). A table displaying each State's FMAP is published annually in the
Section 301 of the Fostering Connections Act added Section 479B to the Social Security Act defining Tribal title IV-E Programs. Section 479B(d) provides for the funding of foster care and adoption assistance programs operated by Indian Tribes and requires HHS to establish FMAP rates for Indian Tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal consortia. Each Tribe's annual FMAP shall be based on the per capita income of the service population of the Indian Tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium. However, no tribal FMAP shall be lower than the FMAP of any State in which the Indian Tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium is located. That is, for Indian Tribes located in multiple States, the Indian Tribe's FMAP (and that to be used with respect to claiming through any title IV-E agreements between the Indian Tribe and a State title IV-E agency) will be at least as high as that of whichever of the States in which it is located that has the highest FMAP. The FMAP described here will be used for Indian Tribes' title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance programs whether they are administered directly by the Indian Tribe or through an agreement with a title IV-E State agency. The specific statutory language reads as follows:
(d) Determination of Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Foster Care Maintenance and Adoption Assistance Payments:
(1)
(2)
The law also requires the application of the tribal FMAP, if higher than the State FMAP, for assistance payments claimed by a State IV-E agency under title IV-E agreements and contracts between States and Indian Tribes. (See Section 474(a)(1) and (2) of the Social Security Act.)
The formula for calculating FMAP for States is specified in title XIX of the Social Security Act (section 1905(b), 42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)). FMAP is calculated according to the following formula:
The FMAP for a State cannot be less than 50 percent or more than 83 percent. HHS proposes to use the same formula to calculate FMAP for Indian Tribes for title IV-E programs, substituting the Indian Tribe's per capita income data for that of the State. That is: 1-0.45((Indian Tribe's Per Capita Income)
As required by statute, the minimum rate of 50% and the maximum rate of 83% will apply to Indian Tribes. The FMAP rate for each Indian Tribe will be calculated each year in advance of the upcoming fiscal year. Rather than use decimal places, tribal FMAP rates will be rounded up to the next highest whole number (up to a maximum of 83 percent).
When calculating FMAP for States, HHS uses data on per capita income produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) within the Department of Commerce, as required by the Medicaid statute (Section 1101(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(8)(B)). However, BEA does not have data available regarding per capita income for Indian Tribes. Alternative data sources must therefore be used to calculate FMAP for Indian Tribes. HHS has researched available sources of income data for Indian Tribes and has concluded that up to date annual data on per capita income are not currently available for most Indian Tribes.
The U.S. Census Bureau produces the only consistent national data regarding per capita income for each Indian Tribe. However, the source of these data is currently in transition. Per capita income that has in the past been collected every 10 years through the decennial census “long form” will in the future be collected by the Census Bureau using the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing data collection mechanism. ACS data will be updated more frequently than Decennial Census data, leading to more current estimates in the future. The ACS provides annual (1-year) estimates for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 or more. By pooling responses from multiple years of ACS data, 3-year estimates are currently produced for geographic areas with populations of 20,000 or more. Few Indian Tribes, however, are large enough for either annual or 3-year estimates to be produced. Of the 86 Tribes and tribal organizations that submitted letters of intent to ACF indicating an interest in operating title IV-E programs, 3-year ACS data is available for only eight. Beginning late in calendar year 2010 (during Federal Fiscal Year 2011) 5-year estimates will become available from the Census Bureau for smaller geographic areas, including all Indian Tribes and tribal lands for which Decennial Census data has previously been collected. The 3-year and 5-year estimates will be updated annually beginning in calendar year 2011.
HHS plans to use ACS 5-year estimates as the data source for FMAP calculations applying to the fiscal year following the April in which such data are available. The Census Bureau currently projects that these data will become available by the end of calendar year 2010. Assuming the data are released as expected or no later than April 2011, HHS will use ACS 5-year estimates for 2012 FMAP calculations for Indian Tribes.
Until ACS data become consistently available, the only complete source of per capita income data for Indian Tribes and tribal communities is that of the 2000 Decennial Census, which reports 1999 per capita income data for Indian tribal lands. However, these data are now ten years old and may not represent current tribal income levels. While current levels are preferable for use in calculating the FMAP, such data do not yet exist. In the absence of more
We considered whether to use ACS estimates for the several Indian Tribes for which it is available, but decided that it would be more equitable to use the same data source for calculating FMAP for all participating Indian Tribes, tribal organizations and tribal consortia. Therefore, for tribal FMAP rates applying to Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, HHS will rely on per capita income data from the 2000 Decennial Census, which is the most current data source identified that contains information about per capita incomes for the full range of Indian Tribes.
The law requires that FMAP be calculated on the basis of the Indian Tribe's “service population” for its title IV-E program. Census Bureau data regarding per capita income (including that produced for the Decennial Census and the ACS) can be presented (a) For the total population (all races) living on or near the tribal lands; (b) for the population of individuals identifying themselves only as American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN); or (c) for the population who identify themselves as either AI/AN alone or in combination with another race (that is, including multiracial individuals who identify themselves as part AI/AN). Data for populations described in (a) and (b) are standard figures available through the Census Bureau's “American Factfinder” Web site (
In the absence of information on how to characterize Indian Tribes' intended title IV-E service populations, HHS proposes to use per capita income data for the population of individuals identifying themselves only as American Indian or Alaska Native. These data are readily available without special tabulation and does not typically differ substantially from the “AI/AN alone or in combination” population. It is our understanding that figures for the total population living on or near tribal lands includes many persons who are not enrolled members of the Indian Tribe and therefore may not accurately reflect the incomes of the service population. We encourage comments on the issue of which conceptualization of the population should be used in selecting data for FMAP calculations.
Table 1 shows the FMAP rates resulting from various per capita income figures in the 2000 Decennial Census. To determine an Indian Tribe's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, the Indian Tribe's per capita income as shown in the 2000 Decennial Census may be matched to the figures in Table 1. Figures falling between any two percentage rates will be rounded up to the next whole number. Per capita income figures of $13,054 or less in the 2000 Decennial Census result in the maximum FMAP of 83%. Most Indian Tribes have relatively low per capita incomes and would therefore qualify for the maximum rate.
Per capita income data for individual Indian Tribes may be found on the Census Bureau Web site at
As specified in The Fostering Connections Act, tribal IV-E programs may be operated by federally-recognized Indian Tribes, tribal organizations and consortia of Indian Tribes. In the case of tribal organizations and consortia, data on an individual Indian Tribe will not be sufficient for the calculation of the appropriate FMAP. In the case of a tribal organization or tribal consortium composed of two or more Tribes, HHS will calculate FMAP by weighting the per capita income data according to the proportional representation of each Tribe's service population relative to the total service population of the organization or consortium. For instance, if Tribe A with a population of 6,000 members and Tribe B with a population of 4,000 members together operate a title IV-E program, the applicable FMAP would be calculated by weighting the per capita income figures for the two, such that Tribe A's per capita income is multiplied by the ratio of its population (6,000) to the combined population of the consortia (10,000), that is 6,000/10,000 or 0.6, and Tribe B's per capita income is multiplied by 4,000/10,000 (or 0.4) and the two weighted per capita income figures would be added to produce the per capita income figure for the FMAP formula.
For fiscal years beyond 2011, the Department plans to use American Community Survey 5-year data for the per capita income estimates of Indian Tribes as well as for the U.S. per capita income information necessary for the FMAP formula. At that point, FMAP rates will be updated annually based on the most recent ACS 5-year estimates available. The formula for the calculation will remain as described above. In the third quarter of each fiscal year ACF regional office staff will communicate with each Indian Tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium their tribal FMAP rate for the upcoming fiscal year. Because most Indian Tribes will be receiving the maximum FMAP rate and per capita incomes do not tend to change rapidly, it is likely that many programs will see little, if any, matching rate shifts from year to year. A link to a table similar to the one at the end of this notice will be posted annually on ACF's Web site (
The Fostering Connections Act specifies that before the tribal FMAP calculations for each fiscal year become effective the Secretary shall consider relevant data (
In the absence of supplemental data, HHS will use the data and procedures described above to calculate the applicable FMAP for the grantee. Indian Tribes, tribal organizations and tribal consortia may submit additional relevant data for the Department's consideration in making the FMAP calculation and such data will be evaluated by the Division of Mandatory Grants in the Office of Grants Management at ACF. Such data may be submitted to the attention of Joseph Lonergan, Director, Division of Mandatory Grant, ACF Office of Grants Management, at 202-401-6603 (phone); 202-401-5644 (fax); or e-mail:
Data to be considered for a given fiscal year's calculation should be submitted no less than 30 days before the beginning of the next fiscal year (September 1) in order to provide sufficient time for the Department to evaluate the suitability of the additional data. Tribal leadership will be consulted prior to a final decision by the Department regarding the suitability of any supplemental data submitted. The Department will also work closely with tribal leaders before establishing a final FMAP for the upcoming fiscal year.
From time to time Congress provides for adjustments to FMAP rates in response to economic conditions or other circumstances. At present and continuing through the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 (that is, December 30, 2010), States are receiving a temporary increase in their FMAP rates, including a temporary increase of 6.2 percentage points that is applicable to all title IV-E programs in which assistance payments are claimed. The statutory authorization for the temporary increase is found in section 5001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Public Law 111-5. In addition, Public Law 111-226, the Education, Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, provides for rates of 3.2 percentage points above regular FMAP rates for the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 (January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011) and 1.2 percentage points above regular FMAP rates for the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 (April 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011). Increased rates authorized by Public Law 111-226 apply to States only if the State's Chief Executive Officer certifies by September 24, 2010 that the State will request and use the additional funds.
To the extent permitted by statute, it is HHS's intention to treat Indian Tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia in the same manner as States. We have determined that the temporary FMAP increases described above will apply to tribal FMAP as they do to States. In the table at the end of this announcement, both standard and temporarily adjusted FMAP applicable through December 30, 2010 are shown. The temporary increases applicable to the second and third quarters of Fiscal Year 2011 are not shown on the table but may be similarly calculated. The applicability of any future FMAP adjustments to Indian Tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia will depend on the specific statutory language enacting such adjustments.
We encourage interested parties to provide comments on the methodology and data sources for calculating the Tribal FMAP rates for title IV-E programs. Specifically, we invite comment on the definition of service population adopted in this notice and alternate data sources for per capita income of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia.
Laura Radel, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404-E—Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; 202-690-5938;
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice.
Section 3003(b)(3) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 mandates that the HIT Standards Committee develop a schedule for the assessment of policy recommendations developed by the HIT Policy Committee and publish it in the
The National Coordinator will establish priority areas based in part on recommendations received from the HIT Policy Committee regarding health information technology standards, implementation specifications, and/or certification criteria. Once the HIT Standards Committee is informed of those priority areas, it will:
(A) Direct the appropriate workgroup or subcommittee to develop a report for the HIT Standards Committee, to the extent possible, within 90 days, which will include among other items the following:
(1) An assessment of what standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria are currently available to meet the priority area;
(2) an assessment of where gaps exist (
(3) a timeline, which may also account for NIST testing where appropriate, and include dates when the HIT Standards Committee is expected to issue recommendation(s) to the National Coordinator.
(B) Upon receipt of a subcommittee report, the HIT Standards Committee will:
(1) Accept the timeline provided by the subcommittee, and if necessary, revise it; and
(2) assign subcommittee(s) to conduct research and solicit testimony, where appropriate, and issue recommendations to the full committee, in a timely manner.
(C) Advise the National Coordinator, consistent with the accepted timeline in (B)(1) and after NIST testing, where appropriate, on standards, implementation specifications, and/or certification criteria, for the National Coordinator's review and determination whether or not to endorse the recommendations, and possible adoption of the proposed recommendations by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For a listing of upcoming HIT Standards Committee meetings, please visit the ONC Web site at
Notice of this schedule is given under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), section 3003.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in its role as the Chair of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, is announcing a meeting to solicit input from the public that will inform the development of a strategic plan for federal youth policy.
October 19, 2010, from 9 a.m.-1 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Colorado Plaza Towers at 633 17th Street, Denver, CO 80202.
Visit the Web site for the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs at
On March 11, 2009, the Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8). The House Appropriations Committee Print,
The Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs is comprised of staff from twelve Federal agencies that support programs and services that focus on youth: the U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Chair); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Justice (Vice-Chair); U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of Transportation; Corporation for National and Community Service; and Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The Working Group seeks to promote achievement of positive results for at-risk youth through the following activities:
• Promoting enhanced collaboration at the Federal, state, and local levels, including with faith-based and other community organizations, as well as among families, schools and communities, in order to leverage existing resources and improve outcomes;
• Disseminating information about critical resources, including evidence-based programs, to assist interested citizens and decisionmakers, particularly at the community level, to plan, implement, and participate in effective strategies for at-risk youth;
• Developing an overarching strategic plan for federal youth policy, as well as recommendations for improving the coordination, effectiveness and efficiency of youth programs, using input from community stakeholders, including youth; and
• Producing a Federal Web site, FindYouthInfo.gov, to promote effective community-based efforts to reduce the factors that put youth at risk and to provide high-quality services to at-risk youth.
For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register on-line at
Division F, Pub. L. 111-8; E.O. 13459, 73 FR 8003, February 12, 2008.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in its role as the Chair of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, is announcing a meeting to solicit input from the public that will inform the development of a strategic plan for federal youth policy.
October 19, 2010, from 9 a.m.-1 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Henry M. Jackson Building at 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-1009.
Visit the Web site for the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs at
On March 11, 2009, the Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8). The House Appropriations Committee Print, Division F—Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations included language directing the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs to solicit input from young people, State children's cabinet directors, and non-profit organizations on youth programs and policies; develop an overarching strategic plan for Federal youth policy; and prepare recommendations to improve the coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency of programs affecting youth.
The Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs is comprised of staff from twelve Federal agencies that support programs and services that focus on youth: the U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Chair); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Justice (Vice-Chair); U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of Transportation; Corporation for National and Community Service; and Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The Working Group seeks to promote achievement of positive results for at-risk youth through the following activities:
• Promoting enhanced collaboration at the Federal, state, and local levels, including with faith-based and other community organizations, as well as among families, schools and communities, in order to leverage existing resources and improve outcomes;
• Disseminating information about critical resources, including evidence-based programs, to assist interested citizens and decisionmakers, particularly at the community level, to plan, implement, and participate in effective strategies for at-risk youth;
• Developing an overarching strategic plan for federal youth policy, as well as recommendations for improving the coordination, effectiveness and efficiency of youth programs, using input from community stakeholders, including youth; and
• Producing a Federal Web site,
For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register on-line at
Division F, Pub. L. 111-8; E.O. 13459, 73 FR 8003, February 12, 2008.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506I(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on
OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-6974, E-mail:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the
1.
2.
CMS requires that MA and PDP organizations submit a completed PBP and formulary as part of the annual bidding process. During this process, organizations prepare their proposed plan benefit packages for the upcoming contract year and submit them to CMS for review and approval. Refer to the supporting document “Appendix B” for a list of changes.
3.
MAOs and PDPs use the Bid Pricing Tool (BPT) software to develop their actuarial pricing bid. The information provided in the BPT is the basis for the plan's enrollee premiums and CMS payments for each contract year. The tool collects data such as medical expense development (from claims data and/or manual rating), administrative expenses, profit levels, and projected plan enrollment information. By statute, completed BPTs are due to CMS by the first Monday of June each year. CMS reviews and analyzes the information provided on the Bid Pricing Tool. Ultimately, CMS decides whether to approve the plan pricing (
4.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1.
2.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the civilian, non-institutionalized population of the United States 12 years old and older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, ONDCP, Federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.
In March 2008, SAMHSA received a three-year renewal of its generic clearance for methodological field tests. This will be a request for another renewal of the generic approval to continue methodological tests over the next three years, with conditions similar to the previous clearance. These methodological tests will continue to be designed to examine the feasibility, quality, and efficiency of new procedures or revisions to existing survey protocol. Specifically, the tests will measure the reliability and validity of certain questionnaire sections and items through multiple measurements on a set of respondents; assess new methods for gaining cooperation and participation of respondents with the goal of increasing response and decreasing potential bias in the survey estimates; and assess the impact of new sampling techniques and technologies on respondent behavior and reporting. Research will involve focus groups, cognitive laboratory testing, field tests, and customer surveys.
The next wave of methodological tests will continue to examine ways to increase data quality, lower operating costs, and gain a better understanding of sources and effects of nonsampling error on the NSDUH estimates. Particular attention will be given to minimizing the impact of design changes so that survey data continue to remain comparable over time. If these tests provide successful results, current procedures or data collection instruments may be revised.
The number of respondents to be included in each field test will vary, depending on the nature of the subject being tested and the target population. However, the total estimated response burden is 8,251 hours. The exact number of subjects and burden hours for each test are unknown at this time, but will be clearly outlined in each individual submission. The table below, however, describes the anticipated burden for each of the major testing activities for which generic approval is being tested.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 8-1099, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 and e-mail a copy to
Respondents: Financial institutions doing business in two or more States.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by December 7, 2010.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information
In the
In the 2002 TEA final rule, we estimated that 50 TEAs would be submitted to us annually by approximately 25 respondents (67 FR 3060 at 3073). We also estimated that the time required for preparing and submitting each TEA would be approximately 480 hours. We continue to believe that a respondent will spend approximately 480 hours preparing a TEA, but we no longer expect to receive 50 TEAs annually. Since 2003, we have received a total of 16 TEAs from 12 respondents. This is equivalent to 2.3 TEAs annually from 1.7 respondents. We now estimate that we will receive 2 TEAs annually from 2 respondents (see table 1 of this document).
We also estimated in the 2002 TEA final rule that we would receive three safety and effectiveness submissions for each condition found eligible for further consideration under a TEA (67 FR 3060 at 3072). We estimated that we would receive 90 submissions of safety and effectiveness data annually. And, we estimated that it would take approximately 800 hours to prepare and submit each safety and effectiveness submission. We believe that each submission, including serious adverse drug experiences and a compendial monograph, will take approximately 800 hours to complete (see table 1 of this document). However, we do not believe the estimated number of submissions is accurate. During the 8 years that have elapsed since publication of the 2002 TEA final rule, we have found 14 ingredients eligible under the TEA process and have received 16 submissions of safety and effectiveness data from 9 respondents. Therefore, we now estimate that we will receive two submissions of safety and effectiveness data annually from two respondents.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The National Institutes of Health is announcing a public meeting to gather stakeholder perspectives on its plan to develop the Genetic Testing Registry. The meeting will provide a forum for interested stakeholders to provide comments on specific aspects of the plan.
Advances in the knowledge of genetic factors involved in health and disease have been accompanied by a rapid rise in the availability of genetic tests, including those tests that diagnose or assess the risk for disease, provide prognostic information, and guide the selection of drug therapies and dosing. Although more than 2,000 genetic tests are available, there is no public resource that provides centralized information about the availability and scientific basis of these tests.
On March 18, 2010, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced its intent to develop the Genetic Testing
The GTR project is overseen by the NIH Office of the Director. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), part of the National Library of Medicine at NIH, is responsible for developing the registry, which is expected to be available in 2011.
As part of the development process, the NIH issued a Request for Information (RFI) on July 12, 2010, to seek input from the public on its plan for this project. The RFI comment period ended August 2, 2010. NIH received 68 comments in response to the RFI, and these comments are available at
NIH will begin the November 2 public meeting with an overview of the public comments that were received in response to the RFI and a presentation of prototype data elements for the GTR. The remainder of the meeting will be dedicated to a moderated discussion of responses to specific questions about the GTR. The meeting agenda will be available on the Internet at
The RFI comments have been helpful in the development of a prototype of registry data elements. However, NIH seeks further public input on specific aspects of the GTR and requests that comments address the questions below. If time permits, discussion of additional issues will be accommodated.
1. Based on an analysis of RFI comments and other operational issues, NIH is considering a phased approach to developing the GTR in which some types of tests would be eligible for early entry in the GTR and other types of tests would be added later. If NIH adopts this approach, what criteria should be used to determine which genetic tests should be included in the first phase of the GTR, and what types of tests would meet these criteria?
2. Several RFI responders, who are potential data submitters, noted that it makes more sense for clinicians and genetics professionals to be the source of clinical utility evidence rather than test developers and/or test providers. Given that data submitters are unlikely to have clinical utility information, how is this data element best addressed in the GTR?
3. Among responders to the RFI question about including a data element for test cost, half were in favor of including cost information and half were opposed. What are the benefits, risks, and challenges of including cost information in the GTR?
4. What safeguards can be put in place to prevent GTR users from misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or misusing the information in the Registry?
5. What mechanisms can be used to provide materials that explain the GTR's data elements to audiences with varying technical expertise?
Office of Information Services, OA, ACF, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Administration (OA), Office of Information Services (OIS) announces the award of a single-source cooperative agreement to the Johns Hopkins University (JHU), Applied Physics Lab (APL) and School of Public Health, in Baltimore, MD, to support the development of a Human Services National Interoperable Architecture. Under the award, APL will develop an architectural framework that will be used as a model to facilitate State and local agencies in information exchanges among eligibility and verification services that are developed by the HHS/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
To address issues related to implementation of the ACA and the Improper Payments and Recovery Act of 2010, the Administration has directed Agencies to begin to design and execute plans related to the legislation. Under ACA, CMS has been directed to create a technical solution that enables health-related eligibility and enrollment functions and to ensure that the human services agencies can use the solutions for human services eligibility and verification determination. Under the Improper Payments and Recovery Act of 2010, Agencies must design and begin the execution of plans to eliminate improper payments and fraud.
JHU will create the development of a conceptual information technology architecture with ACF/Office of Information Services. The project will produce a solution that supports information exchanges and interoperability that will lead to reductions in improper payments as a preventative step in the program integrity process.
David Jenkins, Federal Project Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, Administration for Children and Families, 901 D Street, SW., 3rd Floor West, Washington, DC 20047; E-mail:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-New, Port Stakeholder Interface Form. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Please submit comments on or before November 8, 2010.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2009-0560] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) or to OIRA. To avoid duplication, please submit your comments by only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3523 or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2009-0560]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is best if they are received on or before November 8, 2010.
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (75 FR 1068, January 8, 2010) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
60 Day Notice of proposed information collection.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection request as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the U.S. Secret Service, within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is soliciting comments concerning the SSF 86A, Supplemental Investigative Data.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 7, 2010.
Direct all written comments to United States Secret Service, Security Clearance Division, Attn: Althea Washington, Personnel Security Branch, 950 H St., NW., Washington, DC 20223, Suite 3800, 202-406-5975. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may either call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 or call directly (TTY) 202-406-5390.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to: United States Secret Service, Security Clearance Division, Attn: Robin DeProspero, Security Clearance Division, 950 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20223. Telephone number: 202-406-6658.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires each Federal agency to provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The notice for this proposed information collection contains the following: (1) The name of the component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; (2) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (3) OMB Control Number, if applicable; (4) Title; (5) Summary of the collection; (6) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (7) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (8) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. The Department of Homeland Security invites public comment.
The Department of Homeland Security is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Is the estimate of burden for this information collection accurate; (3) How might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) How might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
Joyce Allen, Director, Office of Multifamily Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1142 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Status of the proposed information collection:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Karin Hill, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-4308 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
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.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Joyce Allen, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1142 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Harry Messner, Office of Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice.
The currently approved information collection related to Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (2529-0043) will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the expiration date, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form HUD 60002 is being submitted without any changes. Form HUD 958 has been revised to more accurately reflect the complaint investigation procedures set forth in the Section 3 regulation at 24 CFR part 135. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB
Staci Gilliam, Director, Economic Opportunity Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 5234, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-3468. (This is not a toll-free number.) Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8399.
The Department is submitting the currently approved information collection for 2529-0043 to OMB for an extension of the current expiration date, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 34, as amended). Form HUD 60002 is being submitted without any changes. Form HUD 958 has been revised to more accurately reflect the complaint investigation procedures set forth in the Section 3 regulation at 24 CFR part 135. This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Enhance the effectiveness of the Section 3 Program, (2) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (3) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The information will be used by the Department to monitor program recipients for compliance with the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. HUD Headquarters will use the information to assess the results of each recipient's efforts to meet the regulatory objectives of Section 3, and to prepare mandatory reports for Congress and the general public assessing the effectiveness of Section 3. The data collected will be used by recipients as a self-monitoring tool. The data collection for this form is unchanged.
The information will be used by residents and businesses to submit complaints alleging noncompliance with the regulatory requirements of Section 3. HUD staff will use this form to respond to and investigate complaints filed. The data collection for this form has been revised to more accurately reflect the complaint investigation procedures set forth in the Section 3 regulation at 24 CFR part 135.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Vance Morris, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1672 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Vance Morris, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3175 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Form HUD-93101 is sent by lenders to individual borrowers to determine and adjust the amount of subsidy a mortgagor is eligible to receive. It is used for securing re-certifications. The forms serve as vehicles for obtaining the information necessary to determine family income and composition, and to compute assistance under HUD guidelines. The HUD-93101-A form is no longer submitted to HUD by lenders for statistical analysis of increase and decrease in subsidy and general program information. Mortgagees maintain copies of both forms HUD-93101 and 93101-A for audit purposes.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Vance Morris, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of a federal advisory committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (the Committee). The meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The meeting will be held on October 27-28, 2010.
The meeting will be held at: Holiday Inn Arlington, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
Elizabeth A. Cocke, Deputy Administrator, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 9164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2) and implementing regulations. 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(3), providing:
(A)
(i) Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and
(ii) Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement regulations, including regulations specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring in accordance with subsection (b);
(iii) Be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation; and
(iv) Be deemed to be an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees.
In notice document 2010-24374 beginning on page 60134 in the issue of Wednesday, September 29, make the following correction:
On page 60135, in the second line of the section beginning with
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of final comprehensive conservation plan and finding of no significant impact for environmental assessment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment (EA) for Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage this refuge for the next 15 years.
You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or CD-ROM.
Libby Herland, Project Leader, Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776; phone: 413-443-4661, or Carl Melberg, Planning Team Leader, phone: 978-443-4661; electronic mail:
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Nomans Land Island NWR, which we started with the notice of intent we published in the
Nomans Land Island is a 628-acre roadless island located approximately 3 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. The refuge was established in 1998 for the conservation and management of migratory birds. We first began managing a portion of the eastern side of the island in 1970 as an “overlay” refuge under a joint management agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), while it was still under Navy management. In 1998, management of the island was transferred to the Service, and all 628 acres became Nomans Land Island NWR.
This island has a unique history, from its use by Native Americans as a summer camp, to sheep grazing when the island was privately owned in the 1800s, to use as a bombing range by the Navy during World War II. Because Nomans Land Island provides diverse habitats including intertidal, freshwater wetland, grassland, and shrubland habitats, it serves an important role for nesting landbirds and colonial waterbirds, and is a stopover for migratory birds and raptors, including the peregrine falcon.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP for Nomans Land Island NWR in accordance with NEPA requirements. The FONSI is included as Appendix K in the final CCP. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the EA/draft CCP.
Alternative C, as we described in the EA/draft CCP, is the foundation for the final CCP.
The Administration Act, as amended by the Improvement Act, 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
Our EA/draft CCP addressed several key issues, including the amount of shrubland to manage, other priority habitat types to conserve, land protection and conservation priorities, improving the visibility of the Service and refuge, and ways to improve opportunities for off-site public use while ensuring the restoration and protection of priority ecological and cultural resources.
To address these issues and develop a plan based on the purposes for establishing the refuge, and the vision and goals we identified, we identified three alternatives in the EA. The alternatives have some actions in common, such as protecting and monitoring federally listed species and the regionally significant coastal shrubland, controlling invasive plants and wildlife diseases, monitoring programs that benefit our resource decisions, protecting cultural resources, and distributing refuge revenue-sharing payments to counties.
Other actions distinguish the alternatives. Alternative A, or the “No Action Alternative,” consists of our current management activities. It serves as the baseline against which to compare the other two alternatives. Our habitat management and visitor services programs would not change under this alternative. We would continue to use the same tools and techniques, and not expand existing facilities. Under Alternative A, we would continue to passively manage refuge lands, and the Service would have minimal presence. Habitat management would be limited to continuing to passively oversee the current 400 acres of shrub habitat, up to 150 acres of freshwater wetland communities, 100 acres of marine intertidal beach and rocky shore habitat, and 15 acres of herbaceous upland dune vegetation. We would continue minimal monitoring of focal species as current staffing allows. We would provide oversight and coordination to Navy contaminant and unexploded ordnance (UXO) cleanup.
The refuge would continue to be closed to the public. Administration of off-site visitor services, land protection, and biological and law enforcement activities would be handled by existing staff from the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex based in Sudbury, Massachusetts, as funds and staffing permit.
Under Alternative B, we would emphasize more active monitoring and management of all refuge habitats to support focal species whose habitat needs also benefit other species of conservation concern in the region. In particular, the alternative emphasizes active habitat management for breeding and migrating priority bird species of conservation concern identified by national, regional, and State conservation plans.
With the addition of seasonal biological and law enforcement staff, under Alternative B, we would also implement a more active prescribed burning regime, invasive species and predator control programs, and better enforcement of the no-public-access policy. We would actively monitor and manage beach/nesting species such as terns, plovers, and rare plants, and consider the introduction of the New England cottontail. We would improve our visitor services through partnerships and working with them to develop programs and facilities on their lands that help increase awareness of the refuge's biological and cultural resources. Finally, our biological program would be enhanced through partnerships that would increase our ability to conduct surveys and long-term monitoring.
Alternative C was identified as the Service-preferred alternative in theEA/draft CCP. It allows the 400 acres of critical migration stopover shrub habitat to be influenced by natural processes such as succession over the next 15 years, with minimal management. It allows coastal processes of wind and wave action to shape the current 15 acres of herbaceous upland dune vegetation, 100 acres of marine intertidal beach and rocky shore habitats, and almost 150 acres of freshwater wetlands. Under this alternative, we also would continue to study the feasibility of introducing New England cottontail on the refuge.
The alternative recognizes the island as one of the few opportunities in the Northeast region of the United States for wilderness designation and proposes pursuing formal designation as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It also recognizes the need to coordinate with the Navy annually to promote communication, exchange information on Navy operations and management planning, and facilitate cleanup of contaminants and UXO on the refuge. We would also closely coordinate with the Navy and the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Office for any proposed ground-disturbing activity. We would monitor vegetation changes every 3 years through aerial photography and/or site visitation. We would establish a fire regime to manage shrub habitat as needed, and we would monitor invasive plant species annually and control those that threaten healthy ecosystems.
Existing refuge complex staff would enhance the visitor services program through a broader array of off-site programming and outreach through partnership opportunities as they arise, similar to, but to a lesser extent than would take place under the other alternatives.
We invited comments on the EA/draft CCP during a public review and comment period, from May 28 through July 3, 2010, and held a public meeting on June 23, 2010, in the Town of Chilmark, Massachusetts.
We received 24 unique letters and oral comments representing individuals, organizations, and State agencies. We made modifications to the draft that are outlined in Appendix J, “Summary of Public Comments and Service's Response on the Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge” in the final CCP. Highlights of some of the changes are listed below:
1. We were made aware of additional partnership opportunities on Martha's Vineyard and have modified the final CCP to reflect these opportunities (pages 4-7 through 4-8). We also inserted language in the Rationale to Objective 2.2 (page 4-30) that these partnerships would potentially provide additional resources to increase our visitor services capacity from what we originally proposed.
2. We added language to Chapter 4 in the final CCP (page 4-11) stating that although it would not be possible to clean up the island to pre-bombing conditions, we would continue to work with the Navy and Federal and State regulators for the 5-year site reviews as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. If, at some point in the future, there is a
3. We included language in our Habitat Management and Protection summary in Chapter 4 of the final CCP (page 4-14) and biological rationales [Objectives 1.1 (page 4-19) and 1.2 (page 4-24)] to work with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program to evaluate the appropriateness of altering the frequency of prescription burns to incorporate rare plant management, and for tern restoration efforts.
4. We added language to several sections in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 in the final CCP to incorporate more life history information and to refine our biological objectives and management actions for piping plover (pages 3-33,3-35, 4-21, 4-23, and 4-24). This is due to the presence of a breeding pair on the island for the first time in 30 years.
5. We corrected typographical and grammatical errors identified by reviewers.
After considering the comments we received on our EA/draft CCP, we have selected Alternative C for implementation, for several reasons. Alternative C comprises the mix of actions that, in our professional judgment, works best toward achieving refuge purposes, our vision and goals, and the goals of other State and regional conservation plans, and it is most consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management. We also believe it most effectively addresses the key issues raised during the planning process. The basis of our decision is detailed in Appendix K, Finding of No Significant Impact, in the final CCP.
You can view or obtain documents as indicated under
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, and the National Indian Gaming Commission, the City of Calexico, and the Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Indians as cooperating agencies, intend to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Tribe's proposed 60.8-acre fee-to-trust transfer and casino project to be located in Calexico, California, and that the DEIS is now available for public review and comment. This notice provides a 75-day public comment period, which adds a 30-day extension to the normal 45-day public comment period.
The DEIS will be available for public comment beginning October 8, 2010. Written comments on the DEIS must arrive by December 22, 2010. A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. or until the last public comment is received.
You may mail or hand carry written comments to Dale Risling, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825. A public hearing will be held at: City of Calexico, 608 Heber Avenue, Calexico, California 92231.
John Rydzik (916) 978-6051.
The Tribe proposes that 60.8 acres of land be taken into trust for the purpose of developing a casino facility. The property is located at the northernmost gateway to the City of Calexico, a California/Mexico border city of growing importance in international trade. The project site is situated at the southwest quadrant of State Highway 111 and Jasper Road and is bounded on the south and west by the Central Main and Dogwood Canals. The 60.8-acre parcel is undeveloped former agricultural land and is located within the City of Calexico's proposed 111 Calexico Place project site, a commercial highway development project that was approved by the City of Calexico City Council on May 5, 2010.
The proposed action consists of the fee-to-trust transfer of the project site, Federal review (by the National Indian Gaming Commission) of the development and management contract, and development of the proposed project. The proposed project includes a 459,621-square-foot casino facility on the 60.8-acre parcel. The casino facility would include an approximately 93,880-square-foot casino; 63,000 square feet of food/beverage and retail components; a 38,660-square-foot entertainment venue; and 218,081 square feet of other operational facilities (
BIA, serving as the lead agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), published a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS for the proposed action in the
Please include on the first page of your written comments your name, return address, and the phrase “DEIS Comments, Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 60.8-Acre Fee-to-Trust Casino Project, Calexico, California.”
The DEIS will be available to view at Holtville Branch—Meyer Memorial Library, 101 E. 6th Street, Holtville, CA 92250 and at the City of Calexico—Camarena Memorial Library, 850 Encinas Avenue, Calexico, CA 92231. General information for the Holtville Branch—Meyer Memorial Library can be obtained by calling (760) 356-2385 and the City of Calexico—Camarena Memorial Library by calling (760) 768-2170. An electronic version of the DEIS can also be viewed at:
To obtain a compact disk copy of the DEIS, please provide your name and address in writing or by voicemail to John Rydzik, Chief of the Division of Environmental, Cultural Resources Management and Safety, at the telephone number provided in the
Written comments, including the names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BIA address shown in the
This notice is published pursuant to section 1503.1 of the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior.
Notice of Intent to Conduct a Review of BOEMRE Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) is announcing its intent to conduct a broad review of its categorical exclusions (CEs) for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) decisions. This review is being conducted in accordance with section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4332; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 (Nov. 1978); the CEQ Draft Guidance on Establishing and Applying Categorical Exclusions under NEPA (February 18, 2010); and consistent with recommendations provided by CEQ in their “Report Regarding the Minerals Management Service's National Environmental Policy Act Policies, Practices, and Procedures as They Relate to Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (August 16, 2010). Furthermore, this notice provides the public an opportunity to comment on the issues that should be addressed by BOEMRE during the review of its CEs and their application to OCS decisionmaking. The BOEMRE will use and coordinate a commenting process to ensure public involvement.
The Department of the Interior NEPA procedures were promulgated as regulations and published in the
“Categorical exclusion” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (§ 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. An agency may decide in its procedures or otherwise, to prepare environmental assessments for the reasons stated in Sec. 1508.9 even though it is not required to do so. Any procedures under this section shall provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS, now BOEMRE) identified additional categories of actions designated as CEs, which include those related specifically to OCS activities. BOEMRE's CEs (Departmental Manual at 516 DM 15.4) can be found at
(1) Inventory, data, and information collection, including the conduct of environmental monitoring and nondestructive research programs.
(2) Actions for which MMS has concurrence or co-approval with another Bureau if the action is a categorical exclusion for that Bureau.
(1) All resource evaluation activities including surveying, mapping, and geophysical surveying which do not use solid or liquid explosives.
(2) Collection of geologic data and samples including geologic, paleontologic, mineralogic, geochemical, and geophysical investigations which does not involve drilling beyond 50 feet of consolidated rock or beyond 300 feet of unconsolidated rock, including contracts therefor.
(3) Acquisition of existing geological or geophysical data from otherwise private exploration ventures.
(4) Well logging, digital modeling. inventory of existing wells, and installation of recording devices in wells.
(5) Establishment and installation of any research/monitoring devices.
(6) Test or exploration drilling and downhole testing included in a project previously subject to the NEPA process.
(7) Insignificant revisions to the approved 5-year leasing program.
(8) Prelease planning steps such as the Call for Information and Area Identification.
(1) Issuance and modification of regulations, Orders, Standards, Notices to Lessees and Operators. Guidelines and field rules for which the impacts are limited to administrative, economic, or technological effects and the environmental impacts are minimal.
(2) Approval of production measurement methods, facilities, and procedures.
(3) Approval of off-lease storage in existing facilities.
(4) Approval of unitization agreements, pooling, or communitization agreements.
(5) Approval of commingling of production.
(6) Approval of suspensions of operations and suspensions of production.
(7) Approval of lease consolidation applications, lease assignments or transfers, operating rights, operating agreements, lease extensions, lease relinquishments, and bond terminations.
(8) Administration decisions and actions and record keeping such as:
(a) Approval of applications for pricing determinations under the Natural Gas Policy Act.
(b) Approval of underground gas storage agreements from a presently or formerly productive reservoir.
(c) Issuance of paying well determinations and participating area approvals.
(d) Issuance of drainage determinations.
(9) Approval of offshore geological and geophysical mineral exploration activities, except when the proposed activity includes the drilling of deep stratigraphic test holes or uses solid or liquid explosives.
(10) Approval of an offshore lease or unit exploration. development/production plan or a Development Operation Coordination Document in the central or western Gulf of Mexico (30 CFR 250.2) except those proposing facilities: (1) In areas of high seismic risk or seismicity, relatively untested deep water, or remote areas, or (2) within the boundary of a proposed or established marine sanctuary, and/or within or near the boundary of a proposed or established wildlife refuge or areas of high biological sensitivity; or (3) in areas of hazardous natural bottom conditions; or (4) utilizing new or unusual technology.
(11) Approval of minor revisions of or minor variances from activities described in an approved offshore exploration or development/production plan, including pipeline applications.
(12) Approval of an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) an offshore oil and gas exploration or development well, when said well and appropriate mitigation measures are described in an approved exploration plan, development plan, production plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document.
(13) Preliminary activities conducted on a lease prior to approval of an exploration or development/production plan or a Development Operations Coordination Plan. These are activities such as geological, geophysical, and other surveys necessary to develop a comprehensive exploration plan, development/production plan, or Development Operations Coordination Plan.
(14) Approval of Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells.
(15) Rights-of-ways, easements, temporary use permits, and any revisions thereto that do not result in a new pipeline corridor to shore.
Submit written comments no later than November 8, 2010.
The public as well as Federal, State, and local government agencies, and other interested parties are requested to send their written comments regarding issues that should be addressed by BOEMRE during the review of its CEs and their application to decisionmaking for OCS activities in one of the following ways:
1. In written form enclosed in an envelope labeled “Comments on the Review of Categorical Exclusions for Outer Continental Shelf Decisions” and mailed (or hand carried) to James F. Bennett, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch, Environmental Division (MS 4042), Bureau of Ocean Energy, Regulation and Enforcement, Headquarters, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170.
2. Electronically: go to
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information submitted, will be made publicly available.
For more information on the review of BOEMRE CEs for OCS activities, you may contact James F. Bennett, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch, Environmental Division (Mail Stop 4042), Bureau of Ocean Energy, Regulation and Enforcement, Headquarters, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170. You may also contact Mr. Bennett by telephone at (703) 787-1660.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 3, 2010, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. of Melville, New York. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No 7,463,124 (“the '124 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,737,809 (“the '809 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,764,151 (“the '151 patent). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Mareesa A. Frederick, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2055.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2010).
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on October 1, 2010, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, 23-26, and 32-36 of the '124 patent; claims 1-11, 13-28, 30-59, 61-64, and 74-83 of the ‘809; and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '151 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Mareesa A. Frederick, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2010, a proposed Consent Decree in
The Consent Decree would resolve claims asserted by the United States against Dakota Ethanol, LLC pursuant to Sections 111 and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7661a, seeking injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties for Defendant's alleged violations of the Act. Dakota Ethanol, LLC owns and operates an ethanol production facility in Lake County, South Dakota, near Wentworth (the “Facility”). The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Facility's Title V operating permit by exceeding certain VOC emissions limits, conducting invalid testing to demonstrate compliance with its VOC emissions limits, and failing to timely conduct required VOC stack testing. The complaint also alleges that Defendant violated both its Title V operating permit and regulations promulgated pursuant to the New Source Performance Standards program by failing to maintain the internal floating roof on the liquid inside several storage vessels at the Facility.
The proposed Consent Decree would require Dakota Ethanol, LLC to conduct all VOC Performance Tests in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix M; Method 207 and 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A; Method 18 and to report the results of each performance test to EPA within ninety (90) days. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree would require Defendant to apply to include the testing requirements in either a federally enforceable permit or request a site-specific amendment to the South Dakota SIP to include the requirements enumerated in the Consent Decree within one hundred eighty (180) days. Finally, the proposed Consent Decree would require Dakota Ethanol, LLC to pay a $75,000 civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2010, a proposed Consent Decree in
The Consent Decree would resolve claims asserted by the United States against James Valley Ethanol, LLC (“James Valley”), Northern Lights Ethanol, LLC (“Northern Lights”), and POET Plant Management (“POET”) pursuant to Sections 111 and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7661a, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for Defendants' alleged violations of the Act.
Defendant James Valley owns an ethanol production facility in Brown County, South Dakota, near Groton (the “Groton Facility”) and Defendant Northern Lights owns an ethanol production facility in Grant County, South Dakota, near Big Stone City (the “Big Stone Facility”). Defendant POET operates both the Groton and Big Stone Facilities. The complaint filed by the United States alleges that Defendants James Valley and POET violated the Title V operating permit for the Groton Facility and regulations promulgated pursuant to the New Source Performance Standards program by failing to maintain the internal floating roof on the liquid inside several storage vessels at the Groton Facility. The complaint also alleges that Defendant Northern lights and POET violated the Title V operating permit for the Big Stone Facility by exceeding certain VOC emissions limits, conducting invalid testing to demonstrate compliance with its VOC emissions limits, and failing to install required monitoring devices. Finally, the complaint alleges that these Defendants violated both the Big Stone Facility's Title V operating permit and regulations promulgated pursuant to the
The proposed Consent Decree would require Defendants to conduct all VOC Performance Tests for the Facilities in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix M; Method 207 and 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A; Method 18 and to report the results of each performance test to EPA within ninety (90) days. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree would require Defendants to apply to include the testing requirements in either a federally enforceable permit or request a site-specific amendment to the South Dakota SIP to include the requirements enumerated in the Consent Decree within one hundred eighty (180) days. Finally, the proposed Consent Decree would require Defendants to pay a $150,000 civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 C.F.R. 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 21, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with Bud's Oil Service, Inc. (“Settling Defendant”) in
On September 21, 2010, Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) filed a complaint in this matter against defendant Bud's Oil Service, Inc., pursuant to CERCLA Section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, seeking recovery of environmental response costs incurred by EPA related to the release or threatened release or disposal of hazardous substances at or from the Sites.
Financial information provided by the Settling Defendant indicated a financial inability to pay. However, pursuant to settlement agreements between Settling Defendant and certain of its insurers, the United States has received reimbursement of response costs totalling $485,000. Of this total, $2,900 will be payable to or transferred by EPA to the Casmalia Resources Site Special Account. The remaining amount ($482,100) will be applied towards the Omega Chemical Corporation Site Special Account. In exchange, the proposed Consent Decree provides Settling Defendant with a covenant not to sue and contribution protection with respect to the Sites.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
Notice is hereby given that on October 4, 2010, a proposed Consent Decree in
The proposed Consent Decree will settle the United States' claims on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of 30 days from the date of this publication. Comments on the Consent Decree should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Jersey, Camden Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 401 Market Street, 4th Floor, Camden, NJ 08101, and at EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined at the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice; correction.
The Department of Labor published a document in the
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (
In the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 22, 2010, applicable to workers of Barnstead Thermolyne Corporation, a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, including on-site leased workers from Sedona Staffing, Dubuque, Iowa. The notice was published in the
At the request of a State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of scientific laboratory equipment.
New information shows that workers leased from Per Mar were employed on-site at the Dubuque, Iowa location of Barnstead Thermolyne Corporation, a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Per Mar working on-site at the Dubuque, Iowa location of Barnstead Thermolyne Corporation, a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,855 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Barnstead Thermolyne Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Sedona Staffing and Per Mar, Dubuque, Iowa, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 11, 2008, through February 22, 2012 and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 4, 2010, applicable to workers of EDS, an HP Company (Re-branded as HP—Enterprise Services) Plano, Texas, including on-site leased workers listed above. The notice was published in the
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in activities related to information technology (IT) services.
New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving virtual employees across the United States under the control of the Plano, Texas location of EDS, an HP Company (Re-branded as HP—Enterprise Services). These employees provided various activities related to the supply of information technology (IT) services.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include virtual employees of the Plano, Texas facility of the subject firm working off-site across the United States.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in information technology (IT) services to India, Brazil and Argentina.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,519 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of EDS, an HP Company (re-branded as HP—Enterprise Services), Plano, Texas, including on-site leased workers from Abel Personnel Inc., Advantage Tech Inc., Aerotek, Allied Network Solutions Inc., Analysts International Corp., AppleOne, Assist Cornerstone Technologies, Banctec Inc., Bucher and Christian Consulting Inc., Ciber Inc., Compucom Systems Compuware Corp Comsys Information Technology SVC, Diversified Systems Inc., E-Corn LLC, Farrington Associates Inc., Kelly Services Inc., Logica North America Inc., Manpower Inc. Clerical, Manpower Inc.—Technical, Microsoft Corp, Ntelicor, OAO Technology Solutions Inc., Optimum Technology, Oracle USA Inc., Pinnacle Technical Resources Inc., Professional Data Dimensions, Randstad Staffing Services, S2tech, Sethi Business Group, Smartit Staffing Inc., Spherion Corporation, Superior Staffing Services Inc., Tata America International Corp, Tech Providers Inc., Technology Solutions Provider Inc., Teksystems, The Experts Inc., TM Floyd and Company, Trinity Government SYS a Private Co, Verizon Network Integration Corp., Vision Information Technologies Inc., Volt Services Group, and Wipro Ltd, and including virtual workers across the United States reporting to Plano, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 5, 2008, through February 4, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 19, 2009, applicable to workers of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., formerly a joint venture of General Motors Corporation and Toyota Motor Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Corestaff, Fremont, California. The notice was published in the
At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers assemble the Toyota Corolla and the Toyota Tacoma and used to assemble the Pontiac Vibe.
Information shows that workers leased from MacLellan Integrated Services, Inc. were employed on-site at the Fremont, California location of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., formerly a joint venture of General Motors Corporation and Toyota Motor Corporation. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of New
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from MacLellan Integrated Services working on-site at the Fremont, California location of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., formerly a joint venture of General Motors Corporation and Toyota Motor Corporation.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,748 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., formerly a joint venture of General Motors Corporation and Toyota Motor Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Corestaff, ABM Janitorial, Toyota Engineering and Manufacturing North America, NPA Coatings, Inc., Premier Manufacturing and MacLellan Integrated Services, Inc.; and also on-site workers from DuPont Performance Coatings, Fremont, California, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 29, 2008, through November 19, 2011, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of September 20, 2010 through September 24, 2010.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of September 20, 2010 through September 24, 2010. Copies of these determinations may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 18, 2010.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 18, 2010.
Copies of these petitions may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail, to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or to
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 18, 2010.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 18, 2010.
Copies of these petitions may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail, to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or to
Legal Services Corporation.
Announcement of intention to make FY 2011 Competitive Grant Awards.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) hereby announces its intention to award grants and contracts to provide economical and effective delivery of high quality civil legal services to eligible low-income clients, beginning January 1, 2011.
All comments and recommendations must be received on or before the close of business on November 8, 2010.
Legal Services Corporation—Competitive Grants, Legal Services Corporation; 3333 K Street, NW., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20007.
Reginald Haley, Office of Program Performance, at (202) 295-1545, or
Pursuant to LSC's announcement of funding availability on March 17, 2010 (75 FR 12802), and Grant Renewal applications due on June 7, 2010, LSC intends to award funds to the following organizations to provide civil legal services in the indicated service areas. Amounts are subject to change.
These grants and contracts will be awarded under the authority conferred on LSC by the Legal Services Corporation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1)). Awards will be made so that each service area is served, although none of the listed organizations are guaranteed an award or contract. This public notice is issued pursuant to the LSC Act (42 U.S.C. 2996f(f)), with a request for comments and recommendations concerning the potential grantees within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Grants will become effective and grant funds will be distributed on or about January 1, 2011.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1351,
The KEEP is a job shadowing program intended to provide students with career exploration under the mentorship of a Kennedy Space Center (KSC)NASA of contractor employee. Participation in the program is limited to students who are U.S. citizens, 16 years or older, who have been recommended by a teacher, guidance counselor, or other school official. Students may shadow for 1 day or up to 1 week.
The collection of information will be made by the use of a Web-based on-line application system and a database of applicant information will be developed. We believe this is the most efficient and cost effective way to collect the information.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of public hearings and request for public comments on a Draft PEIS/OEIS for Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
NSF gives notice of the availability of a Draft PEIS/OEIS (hereafter Draft PEIS) for marine seismic research funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS and requests public review and comment on the document. NSF also provides notice of public hearings on the Draft PEIS.
The Division of Ocean Sciences in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO/OCE) has prepared the Draft PEIS as the lead agency with support from the cooperating agencies, USGS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Draft PEIS assesses the potential impacts of marine seismic research on the human and natural environment. Under the Proposed Action, a variety of
The Draft PEIS examines the potential impacts that may result from geophysical exploration and scientific research using seismic surveys that are funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS in non-Arctic waters. The Proposed Action is for academic and U.S. government scientists in the U.S., and possible international collaborators, to conduct marine seismic research from research vessels operated by U.S. academic institutions and government agencies. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to fund the investigation of the geology and geophysics of the seafloor by collecting seismic reflection and refraction data that reveal the structure and stratigraphy of the crust and/or overlying sediment below the world's oceans. NSF has a continuing need to fund seismic surveys that enable scientists to collect data essential to understanding the complex Earth processes beneath the ocean floor.
Two action alternatives and the No-Action Alternative have been carried forward for analysis. The Draft PEIS is available for public review for a 45-day period. Comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2010.
NSF will conduct two public hearings to receive oral and written comments on the Draft PEIS. Federal, state, and local agencies and interested individuals are invited to be present or represented at the public hearings. This notice announces the dates and locations of the public hearings for this Draft PEIS.
An open house session will precede the scheduled public hearing at each of the locations listed below and will allow individuals to review the information presented in the Draft PEIS. NSF and USGS representatives will be available during the open house sessions to clarify information related to the Draft PEIS.
• Monday, October 25, 2010, 5-7 p.m. at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University California-San Diego, Vaughn Hall, Room 100, Discovery Way, La Jolla, CA.
• Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 5-7 p.m. at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 110, Arlington, VA.
The Draft PEIS is available on NSF's Web site at:
Currently, individual Environmental Assessments (EAs) are prepared for individual or small numbers of related cruises to assess the impact of the generated seismic survey noise on the marine environment. In the 7 years from 2003 through 2009, NSF prepared 31 EAs assessing the impact of sound from seismic surveys on marine resources and species listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) during research projects investigating the geology and geophysics of the seafloor. These EAs were prepared for various worldwide, academic research cruises that required the use of various marine seismic sources involving different airgun configurations deployed from the primary U.S. academic seismic survey ship, or smaller airgun sources deployed from other research vessels, often with concurrent operations of non-seismic acoustic sources such as echosounders and bottom profilers.
For past seismic research cruise actions, an EA has been used as the basis for consultation with the NOAA Office of Protected Resources (OPR) under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For each of the research cruises, NOAA OPR issued a Biological Opinion (BO) and related Incidental Take Statements (ITSs), which included terms and conditions to reduce impacts on threatened and endangered species. In parallel with this effort, when applicable, a separate application for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA was submitted for each cruise to another division within NOAA OPR, which subsequently issued the IHA. The MMPA procedures for issuance of an IHA involve publication of a proposed IHA notice in the
To reduce this apparent duplication of effort in environmental documentation and to address the potential for cumulative effects of marine seismic research acoustic sources upon marine resources, NSF and the USGS have decided that a PEIS should be prepared. Preparing a PEIS for NSF and USGS marine seismic research serves several purposes. First, it provides a format for a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis by taking a view of the planned marine seismic research activities as a whole. This is accomplished by assembling and analyzing the broadest range of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with all marine seismic research activities in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the region of influence. Furthermore, the collective analysis of representative project locations will provide a strong technical basis for a more global assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic activities in the future.
A PEIS also sets up a framework for streamlining the preparation of subsequent environmental documents where needed for individual cruises. It is expected that time- and location-specific aspects, or similarly detailed technical information if necessary to evaluate unique impacts of specific cruises and projects, will be addressed in EIS supplements, tiered EAs, or other appropriate environmental documentation that would follow the publication of this Draft PEIS. Thus, while NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research is reviewed under this Draft PEIS, the analysis of site-specific impacts from future cruises may be reserved for future analysis. Tiering of environmental documents in this manner makes subsequent documents of greater use and meaning to the public as NSF's and USGS's marine seismic research develops, without duplicating previous paperwork and environmental analyses. Finally, a PEIS enables the identification of an appropriate and prudent set of standard mitigation measures to be integrated into future NSF-funded and USGS cruises, which is a key goal of NSF and USGS.
Federal, state, local agencies, Native American Tribes and Nations, and interested parties are invited to be present or represented at the public hearings. Written comments can also be submitted anytime during the public hearings or during the 45-day public review period of the Draft PEIS. Comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2010.
Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and
For further information regarding the Draft PEIS contact: Holly Smith, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by November 8, 2010. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Christine J. Kymn, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0130), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by November 8, 2010. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Issuance and Availability of Regulatory Guide 1.54, Revision 2, “Service Level I, II, and III Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants.”
Bruce P. Lin, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 251-7653 or e-mail
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the agency's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.54, “Service Level I, II, and III Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants,” was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1242. The NRC maintenance rule, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.65 (10 CFR 50.65), “Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants,” includes in its scope safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are relied on to remain functional during and following design-basis events with respect to specified functions and nonsafety-related SSCs (1) That are relied on to mitigate accidents or transients or are used in plant emergency operating procedures, (2) whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from fulfilling their safety-related functions, and (3) whose failure could cause a reactor scram or an actuation of a safety-related system. To the extent that protective coatings meet these criteria, these coatings are within the scope of the maintenance rule. The maintenance rule requires the licensee to monitor the effectiveness of maintenance for protective coatings within its scope (as discrete systems or components or as part of any SSC) or to demonstrate that their performance or condition of these coatings is being effectively controlled through the performance of appropriate preventive maintenance, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) or 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2), as appropriate. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.160, “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 2, issued March 1997, provides further guidance.
In March 2010, DG-1242 was published with a public comment period of 60 days from the issuance of the guide. The public comment period closed on May 12, 2010. The staff's responses to the comments received are located in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML102230359. Electronic copies of Regulatory Guide 1.54, Revision 2 are available through the NRC's public Web site under “Regulatory Guides” at
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) located at Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4209, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by e-mail to
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Week of October 11, 2010.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative).
a.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an e-mail to
In person and by telephone vote on September 30, 2010, a majority of the members contacted and voting, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was possible.
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
3. Pricing.
4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
5. Governors' Executive Session—discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at (202) 268-4800.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated 09/29/2010.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12337 8 and for economic injury is 12338 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Texas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-1939-DR), dated 09/28/2010.
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 President's major disaster declaration on 09/28/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 123398 and for economic injury is 123408.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of open Federal Interagency Task Force Meeting.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time, and agenda for the first public meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development. The meeting will be open to the public.
Thursday, October 15, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon in the Eisenhower Conference Room, Side A & B, located on the 2nd floor.
U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development. The Task Force is established pursuant to Executive Order 13540 and focused on coordinating the efforts of Federal agencies to improve capital, business development opportunities and pre-established Federal contracting goals for small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans (VOB's) and service-disabled veterans (SDVOSB'S). Moreover, the Task Force shall coordinate administrative and regulatory activities and develop proposals relating to “six focus areas”: (1) Access to capital (loans, surety bonding and franchising); (2) Ensure achievement of pre-established contracting goals, including mentor protégé and matching with contracting opportunities; (3) Increase the integrity of certifications of status as a small business; (4) Reducing paperwork and administrative burdens in accessing business development and entrepreneurship opportunities; (5) Increasing and improving training and counseling services; and (6) Making other improvements to support veteran's business development by the Federal government.
The Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development shall submit to the President, no later than one year after its first meeting, a report on the performance of its functions and any proposals developed pursuant to the “six focus areas” identified above. The purpose of the meeting is scheduled as a full Task Force meeting and to seek and obtain public comment from individuals and representatives of organizations regarding the areas of focus. The agenda will include presentations and discussion regarding the “six focus areas” of the Task Force.
The meeting is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Task Force must contact Raymond B. Snyder, by October 8, 2010, by e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Comments for the Record should be applicable to the “six focus areas” of the Task Force and emailed prior to the meeting for inclusion in the public record, verbal presentations; however, will be limited to five minutes in the interest of time and to accommodate as many presenters as possible. Written comments should be e-mailed to Raymond B. Snyder, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Veterans Business Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, e-mail address:
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Raymond B. Snyder, Designated Federal Official for the Task Force at (202) 205-6773; or by e-mail at:
For more information, please visit our Web site at
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan. Program (MREIDL), dated 10/01/2010.
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, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, and the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2008, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL).
Effective 10/01/2010, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called—up to active duty during a period of military conflict or have received notice of an expected call-up, and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations.
The purpose of the MREIDL program is to provide funds to an eligible small business to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called—up or expects to be called—up to active duty in his or her role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active duty. For information/applications contact 1-800-659-2955 or visit
Applications for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program may be filed at the above address.
The Interest Rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000.
The number assigned is 12341 0.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold Closed Meetings on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 11:30 a.m., and Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings.
Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meetings in closed sessions.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 13, 2010 will be:
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 14, 2010 will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On August 6, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On February 26, 2010, the SEC adopted amendments to SEC Regulation SHO.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 201 of SEC Regulation SHO set forth the provisions pursuant to which an order may be marked “short exempt” once the circuit breaker has been triggered pursuant to paragraph (b)(3). These provisions include:
• Broker-dealer policies and procedures provision;
• Seller's delay in delivery;
• Odd lot transactions;
• Domestic arbitrage;
• International arbitrage;
• Over-allotments and lay-off sales;
• Riskless principal transactions; and
• Transactions on a volume-weighted average price basis (or “VWAP”).
In light of the reinstitution of the “short exempt” marking category, FINRA has proposed to amend its trade reporting rules applicable to over-the-counter trades in NMS stocks to reintroduce the short sale exempt category.
Similarly, FINRA has proposed to amend its OATS rules to provide that, when an order is received or originated, members must record the designation of an order as a short sale exempt order if the order may be marked “short exempt” pursuant to SEC Regulation SHO.
FINRA has proposed certain additional amendments to its trade reporting rules, including those applicable to OTC Equity Securities, as defined in Rule 6420 (
Second, FINRA has proposed to codify the existing requirement that the information listed in the rule must be provided for each trade that is reported to FINRA. Today, trade report information can be provided in a single report, if the reporting member submits trade information for both sides of the trade, or it can be provided in a combination of reports, if the reporting member and contra side each submit their own trade information (as described more fully below), which will be codified in the rule upon implementation of the proposed changes. For each trade reported to FINRA, members must indicate, among other things, whether the seller (either the reporting member or contra side, irrespective of whether the contra side is a member) is selling short or, upon implementation of the proposed changes, short exempt.
Unless the contra side will have an opportunity to provide its own trade information (
FINRA has stated that the implementation date will be November 10, 2010.
The Commission received two comment letters in response to the proposed rule change.
The FIF Letter raises a number of concerns regarding the proposal.
The FIF Letter also raises concerns with the amount of time allowed for testing prior to implementation of the proposed amendments. In response, FINRA has represented that it has moved up the testing timetable to allow firms to begin testing on October 11th, rather than on October 20th as initially proposed.
The FIF Letter expresses concerns regarding the complexity of the proposed changes and cites the creation of certain route reports for post trade agency allocation as an example of such complexity. FINRA explains that the requirement to provide the price of a routed order on route reports does not change any of the reporting requirements for orders handled on an agency average price or post trade allocation basis. FINRA also states that it has published a new FAQ on its OATS Web site on this issue.
Lastly, the FIF Letter indicates that there may be confusion regarding the proposed November 10th implementation date of the proposed rule change and the November 8th date when the changes will be available in the OATS production environment.
The Wiesenberg Letter raises an issue, not with respect to one of the proposed amendments in the proposed rule change, rather with respect to one of the proposed requirements in FINRA's OATS Reporting Technical Specifications
After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment letters received and the FINRA Response Letter, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities association.
With regard to the comments received, the Commission believes that FINRA has adequately responded to the commenters' concerns. Additionally, the Commission agrees with FINRA and believes that the proposed rule change to amend FINRA's trade reporting and OATS rules, including changes relating to recent amendments to SEC Regulation SHO, will enhance FINRA's surveillance for member compliance, including with SEC Regulation SHO.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to establish a new non-fee liable administrative data feed. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
SQF is an interface that allows specialists, streaming quote traders and remote streaming quote traders to connect and send quotes into Phlx XL.
SQF 6.0 will increase efficiency for interested participants by allowing them to access in a single feed available to all participants, rather than through accessing multiple feeds, information such as execution reports and other relevant data. In order for participants to access all of this information currently or for any that do not use SQF 6.0 in the future, they must rely on a risk management feed and the TOPO/TOPO Plus Orders Exchange interfaces. Non quoting firms that would like to receive the relevant information available over SQF will be allowed to connect to the SQF interface, but not send quotes.
The set of data to be offered over this data feed is administrative in nature or is used to attract liquidity to the Exchange in response to an auction. The Exchange believes the data included in this feed is necessary for participants who have written systems to interface with the Exchange in the case of administrative messages or information regarding auctions and used to attract liquidity.
Participants who have written interfaces to the Phlx system would use the administrative data to determine the current state of the trading system. For example, this data would show which symbols are trading on the Phlx, the current state of an options symbol (i.e., open for trading, trading, halted or closed from trading), as well as similar information regarding complex order strategies. This administrative data will also include the definition of complex order strategies. All of this information is vital to a participant's quoting application and by including this information on the interface used for quoting, participants can streamline their respective system architectures.
Phlx holds auctions throughout the day to open trading in an option and following a trading halt in the option,
A participant's quoting application can receive these notifications over the same interface it sends quotes to the Exchange, SQF, and can now use the data to respond to auctions quickly and efficiently. This data is not sent as a quote to the market because it represents interest that is not immediately executable or, in the case of complex orders, represents a complex strategy which is not disseminated by the Options Price Reporting Authority.
Data proposed for SQF 6.0 will initially include the following:
(1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g., opening imbalance, market exhaust, PIXL
(2) Options Symbol Directory Messages (currently provided on SQF 5.0);
(3) System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system hours, start of quoting, start of opening);
(4) Complex Order Strategy Auction Notifications (COLA);
(5) Complex Order Strategy messages;
(6) Option Trading Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); and
(7) Complex Strategy Trading Action Message (e.g., halts, resumes).
The Exchange currently provides Exchange members with execution reports through two interfaces. Execution reports are made available to all exchange participants on a Risk Management Feed known as “RMP,” as well as an interface replacing RMP known as the Clearing Trade Interface or “CTI.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change to become operative during the week of October 11, 2010. The Exchange has represented that it is important to the Exchange's internal technology roll-out to be able to have SQF 6.0 in place by this time in order for other technological plans to be implemented. The Exchange has also represented that the proposed rule change is a non-controversial system change to data and would not affect the execution of trades. The Exchange has argued that the prompt implementation of the proposal would extend the benefits and new features of SQF 6.0 to its users promptly. On the basis of the Exchange's representations, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative on October 11, 2010.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 6, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Under the proposal, new Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48) will state that the term “Professional” means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A Participant
The professional order designation rule will apply to NOM members, including NASDAQ Options Services LLC (“NOS”). NOS is NOM's exclusive order router for all orders that come through the Exchange.
The Professional definition will not revise the Exchange's price/time order entry (priority) rules. For example, unlike other options exchanges with the Professional designation, the proposed rule change does not affect on NOM the priority of orders designated as Professional. Instead, the proposal is intended to make certain that Participants mark Professional orders properly regardless of whether the order is entered on NOM or routed to another options exchange that has the Professional designation. Moreover, when the proposed Professional designation is in place, NOM will be able to accept orders that are marked as Professional.
The designation of an order as Professional will not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of NOM rules concerning away market protection. That is, all non-broker-dealer orders, including those orders that meet the definition of Professional, will continue to be treated equally for purposes of NOM's away market protection rules.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that NOM's proposed definition of Professional and requirement that Professional orders be properly marked are consistent with the rules of other exchanges relating to Professional orders, which previously were approved by the Commission.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the
• Title of Information Collection: Medical Clearance Update.
• OMB Control Number: 1405-0131.
• Type of Request: Extension of Currently Approved Collection.
• Originating Office: Office of Medical Services, M/MED/C/MC.
• Form Number: DS-3057.
• Respondents: Foreign Service Officers, State Department Employees, Other Government Employees and Family Members.
• Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,800 per year.
• Estimated Number of Responses: 9,800 per year.
• Average Hours per Response: 0.5 hours per response.
• Total Estimated Burden: 4,900 hours.
• Frequency: On occasion.
• Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from October 8, 2010.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Barbara Mahoney, Department of State, Office of Medical Clearances, SA-15 Room 400, 1800 North Kent St., Rosslyn, VA. 22209. FAX 703-875-4850.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Form DS-3057 is designed to collect medical information to provide medical providers with current and adequate information to base decisions on whether a federal employee and family members will have sufficient medical resources at a diplomatic mission abroad to maintain the health and fitness of the individual and family members.
The information collected will be collected through the use of an electronic forms engine or by hand written submission using a pre-printed form.
The U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), Office of Marine Conservation announces that the Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission will meet on October 12, 2010.
The meeting will take place via teleconference on October 12th, 2010, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time.
John Field, Office of Marine Conservation, OES, Room 2758, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. Telephone (202) 647-3263, fax (202) 736-7350, e-mail
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is given that the Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) will meet on the date and time noted above. The panel consists of members from the states of Alaska and Washington who represent the broad range of fishing and conservation interests in anadromous and ecologically related species in the North Pacific. Certain members also represent relevant state and regional authorities. The panel was established in 1992 to advise the U.S. Section of the NPAFC on research needs and priorities for anadromous species, such as salmon, and ecologically related species occurring in the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. The upcoming Panel meeting will focus on two major topics:
(1) Review of the agenda for the 2010 annual meeting of the NPAFC (Nov. 1-5, 2010; Busan, Republic of Korea); and (2) logistics for the U.S. Section at the NPAFC meeting. Background material is available from the point of contact noted above and by visiting
This announcement will appear in the
Otter Tail Valley Railroad Company, Inc. (OTVR) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152
OTVR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on the line can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on November 10, 2010, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to OTVR's representative: Melanie B. Yasbin, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
OTVR has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by October 15, 2010. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA, at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), OTVR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by OTVR's filing of a notice of consummation by October 8, 2011, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for Public Comment.
The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain airport properties 15.83 acres at the Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm Beach, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the Palm Beach County, dated September 11, 1948. The release of property will allow Palm Beach County to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical purposes. The property is located on the northwest corner of Congress Avenue and Gun Club Road in Palm Beach County, Florida. The parcel is currently designated as non-aeronautical use. The property will be released of its federal obligations to swap the land for another County-owned parcel. The 16.92 acre parcel to be acquired is located in Airport Center at the northeast corner of Australian Avenue and Southern Boulevard in Palm Beach County, Florida. This parcel is adjacent to airport property and is currently occupied by a hotel. The fair market value of the Gun Club Road parcel has been determined by appraisal to be $5,875,000. The fair market value of the Australian Avenue parcel has been determined by appraisal to be $5,785,000.
Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only for inspection at the Palm Beach International Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the F to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
Comments are due on or before November 8, 2010.
Documents are available for review at the Palm Beach International Airport, and the FR Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive,
Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the revision of an information collection that is to be proposed for approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of International Affairs of the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Treasury International Capital Form S, Purchases and Sales of Long-term Securities by Foreigners. The Current Actions below clarify the instructions and improve the column titles on the Form S.
Written comments should be received on or before December 7, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dwight Wolkow, International Portfolio Investment Data Systems, Department of the Treasury, Room 5422, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, please also notify Mr. Wolkow by e-mail (
Copies of the proposed forms and instructions are available on the Treasury's TIC Forms webpage,
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War has scheduled a meeting on October 25-27, 2010, in the Reynolds Conference Suite at Alexander Hall, 718 Baylor Avenue, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. The meeting will be held each day from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38, United States Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation.
On the morning of October 25, the Committee will hear from its Chairman and the new Director, Compensation and Pension Service. They will receive briefings on the Employee Education System, Veterans Health Initiative and Robert E. Mitchell Center. In the afternoon, the Committee will then convene a closed session in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the Waco VA Regional Office. On the morning of October 26, the Committee will convene a closed session as the Committee tours the Temple VA Medical Center. Closing portions of these sessions is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). In the afternoon, the Committee will resume in open session and hear presentations from the Assistant Chief of Staff, Clinical Support and Community Relations, and Waco Regional Office POW Coordinator. On October 27, the Committee will discuss their 2010 recommendations and draft of their final Committee report.
Public comments will be received at 2 p.m. on October 26. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the end of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Mr. Jim Adams, Executive Assistant, Compensation and Pension Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, or e-mail at
By Direction of the Secretary
(a) the Secretary of Defense;
(b) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(c) the Secretary of Commerce;
(d) the Secretary of Labor;
(e) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(f) the Secretary of Transportation;
(g) the Secretary of Energy;
(h) the Secretary of Education;
(i) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
(j) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
(k) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;
(l) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
(m) the heads of other executive departments, agencies, or offices as the Co-Chairs may designate.
(a) improved public-private collaboration to develop career pathway and training programs with effective curricula, certifiable skills, and industry-recognized credentials and degrees;
(b) identification of opportunities to amplify, accelerate, or increase the scale of, successful public-private partnerships that match trained workers with prospective employers;
(c) identification and development of stackable credentials that provide entry to and advancement along a career pathway in an in-demand occupation;
(d) outreach to relevant stakeholders—including industry, the adult workforce, younger students, educational institutions, labor unions, policymakers, and community leaders—with expertise in skill development;
(e) alignment of workforce training programs funded by the Departments of Education and Labor, as well as other Federal agencies, with innovative practices and regional market demands, to build on effective skills-based training for adult workers and younger students, including individuals with disabilities;
(f) partnership with appropriate non-profit entities to engage the private sector in developing effective training programs that provide students with recognizable and portable skills that are needed in the marketplace; and
(g) greater use of technology to improve training, skills assessment, and labor market information.
(a) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of any necessary appropriations.
(b) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(c) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Task Force, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Task Force. Each executive department, agency, and office shall bear its own expenses of participating in the Task Force.
(d) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
(a) The Task Force shall consist of:
a. the Department of Defense;
b. the Department of Justice;
c. the Department of the Interior;
d. the Department of Agriculture;
e. the Department of Commerce;
f. the Department of Transportation;
g. the Environmental Protection Agency;
h. the Office of Management and Budget;
i. the Council on Environmental Quality;
j. the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
k. the Domestic Policy Council; and
l. other executive departments, agencies, and offices as the President may, from time to time, designate.
(b) The Task Force may include representatives from affected tribes, who shall be elected officers of those tribes (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities. The Task Force shall, in collaboration with affected tribes, determine an appropriate structure for tribal participation in matters within the scope of the Task Force's responsibilities.
(c) The President shall designate a Chair of the Task Force from among senior officials of executive departments, agencies, and offices represented on the Task Force. The Chair shall lead the coordination of intergovernmental Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration efforts and oversee the work of the Task Force. The Chair shall regularly convene and preside at meetings of the Task Force, determine its agenda, and direct its work. The Chair's duties shall also include:
(d) Representatives of the Gulf States under subsection (a)(2) of this section shall select from among themselves a Vice-Chair of the Task Force.
(a) coordinate intergovernmental efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the implementation of Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration actions;
(b) support the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process by referring potential ecosystem restoration actions to the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council for consideration and facilitating coordination among the relevant departments, agencies, and offices, as appropriate, subject to the independent statutory responsibilities of the trustees;
(c) present to the President a Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (Strategy) as provided in section 4 of this order;
(d) engage local stakeholders, communities, the public, and other officials throughout the Gulf Coast region to ensure that they have an opportunity to share their needs and viewpoints to inform the work of the Task Force, including the development of the Strategy;
(e) provide leadership and coordination of research needs in support of ecosystem restoration planning and decisionmaking in the Gulf Coast region, and work with existing Federal and State advisory committees, as appropriate, to facilitate consideration of relevant scientific and technical knowledge;
(f) prepare a biennial update for the President on progress toward the goals of Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration, as outlined in the Strategy;
(g) communicate with affected tribes in a manner consistent with Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, on consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments; and
(h) coordinate with relevant executive departments, agencies, and offices on ways to encourage health and economic benefits associated with proposed ecosystem restoration actions.
(b) The executive departments, agencies, and offices enumerated in section 2(a)(1) of this order shall, to the extent permitted by law, consider ways to align their relevant programs and authorities with the Strategy.
(b) The Executive Director shall be selected by the Chair and shall supervise, direct, and be accountable for the administration and operation of the Task Force.
(c) The Departments of Commerce (through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Interior (through the Fish and Wildlife Service), and Justice shall identify linkages and opportunities for the Task Force to complement the restoration progress of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council.
(d) At the request of the Chair, executive departments and agencies, including the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Small Business Administration, and the National Science Foundation, shall serve in an advisory role to the Task Force on issues within their expertise.
(e) The Task Force may establish such technical working groups as necessary to support its function. These working groups may include additional representatives from State and tribal governments, as appropriate, to provide for greater collaboration.
(f) The first meeting of the Task Force shall be held within 90 days of the date of this order.
(b) “Ecosystem restoration” means all activities, projects, methods, and procedures appropriate to enhance the health and resilience of the Gulf Coast ecosystem, as measured in terms of the physical, biological, or chemical properties of the ecosystem, or the services it provides, and to strengthen its ability to support the diverse economies, communities, and cultures of the region. It includes activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability. It also includes protecting and conserving ecosystems so they can continue to reduce impacts from tropical storms and other disasters, support robust economies, and assist in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
(c) “Gulf State” means any of the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.
(d) “Natural Resource Damage Assessment” means the process of collecting and analyzing information to evaluate the nature and extent of natural resource injuries resulting from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and to determine the restoration actions needed to bring injured natural resources and services back to baseline conditions and make the environment and public whole for interim losses as defined in 15 CFR 990.30.
(e) “Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council” means the designated Federal, State, local, and tribal trustees as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2706, with trusteeship over natural resources injured, lost, or destroyed as a result of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
(b) In addition to staff provided by the department, agency, or office represented by the Chair, other executive departments, agencies, and offices represented on the Task Force are requested to make services, staff, and facilities available to the Task Force for the performance of its function to the maximum extent practicable, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Members of the Task Force shall serve without any additional compensation for their work on the Task Force.
(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(e) Nothing in this order shall interfere with the statutory responsibilities and authority of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council or the individual trustees to carry out their statutory responsibilities to assess natural resource damages and implement restoration actions under 33 U.S.C. 2706 and other applicable law.
(f) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(g) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.