Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Engineers Corps
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Final rule, amendments.
OGE is issuing this rule to designate an additional departmental component for purposes of the one-year post-employment conflict of interest restriction at 18 U.S.C. 207(c).
The amendments to appendix B to part 2641 (as set forth in amendatory paragraph 2) are effective May 25, 2011.
Amy E. Braud, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel and Legal Policy, Office of Government Ethics, Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.
The Director of OGE (Director) is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(h) to designate distinct and separate departmental or agency components in the executive branch for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). The representational bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) usually extends to the whole of any department or agency in which a former senior employee served in any capacity during the year prior to termination from a senior employee position. However, 18 U.S.C. 207(h) provides that whenever the Director of OGE determines that an agency or bureau within a department or agency in the executive branch exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the remaining functions of the department or agency and there exists no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service, the Director shall by rule designate such agency or bureau as a separate component of that department or agency. As a result, a former senior employee who served in a “parent” department or agency is not barred by 18 U.S.C. 207(c) from making communications to or appearances before any employees of any designated component of that parent, but is barred as to employees of that parent or of other components that have not been separately designated. Moreover, a former senior employee who served in a designated component of a parent department or agency is barred from communicating to or making an appearance before any employee of that component, but is not barred as to any employee of the parent or of any other component.
Under 18 U.S.C. 207(h)(2), component designations do not apply to persons employed at a rate of pay specified in or fixed according to subchapter II of 5 U.S.C. chapter 53 (the Executive Schedule). Component designations are listed in appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641.
The Director of OGE regularly reviews the component designations and determinations and, in consultation with the department or agency concerned, makes such additions and deletions as are necessary. Specifically, the Director “shall by rule make or revoke a component designation after considering the recommendation of the designated agency ethics official.” 5 CFR 2641.201(e)(3)(iii). Before designating an agency component as distinct and separate for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the Director must find that there exists no potential for use by former senior employees of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service, and that the component is an agency or bureau within a department or agency that exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the functions of the parent department or agency and from the functions of other components of that parent. 5 CFR 2641.201(e)(6).
Pursuant to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 2641.201(e), one department has forwarded a written request to OGE to amend its listing in appendix B. After carefully reviewing the requested change in light of the criteria in 18 U.S.C. 207(h) as implemented in 5 CFR 2641.210(e)(6), the Director of OGE has determined to grant this request and amend appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641 as explained below.
The Department of Labor has requested that OGE designate the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) as a distinct and separate component of the Department of Labor for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). The PBGC is a wholly owned Federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, Public Law 93-406, 88 Stat. 829, and established within the Department of Labor. 29 U.S.C. 1302(a). According to the Department of Labor, PBGC performs a Government function that is separate and distinct from every other agency within the Department of Labor. The mission of the PBGC is to protect the retirement income of those workers who have defined benefit plans with their employers.
Accordingly, the Director is granting the request of the Department of Labor and therefore is amending the Department of Labor listing in appendix B to part 2641 to designate the PBGC as a new component.
As indicated in 5 CFR 2641.201(e)(4), a designation “shall be effective as of the effective date of the rule that creates the designation, but shall not be effective as to employees who terminated senior service prior to that date.” Initial designations were effective as of January 1, 1991. The effective date of subsequent designations is indicated by means of parenthetical entries in appendix B. The new component designation made by this rulemaking document is effective May 25, 2011.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, as the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I find that good cause exists for waiving the general requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public comment, and a 30-day delayed effective date. It is important and in the public interest that the designation herein by OGE of the specified separate departmental component be published in the
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only Federal departments and agencies and current and former Federal employees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this rule because it does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), the final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
The Office of Government Ethics has determined that this rulemaking involves a non-major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) and will submit a report thereon to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and Government Accountability Office in accordance with that law at the same time this rulemaking document is sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the
In promulgating this final rule, the Office of Government Ethics has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Executive order since it deals with agency organization, management, and personnel matters and is not “significant” under the order.
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics is amending 5 CFR part 2641 as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. 207; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or we) issues this final rule to amend its regulations on loan policies and operations. This final rule will permit Farm Credit System (System or FCS) institutions with direct lending authority to purchase from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) loans to farmers, ranchers, producers or harvesters of aquatic products and cooperatives that meet eligibility and scope of financing requirements. This will allow the System to provide liquidity and a stable source of funding and credit for borrowers of eligible agricultural loans in rural areas affected by the failure of their lending institution.
This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the
Agriculture and rural sectors in the United States are adversely affected by bank failures and the resultant depressed local economies. Many commercial banks are active in agricultural and cooperative lending and, when they fail, farmers, ranchers, producers or harvesters of aquatic products, and cooperatives can be left seeking new lenders to meet their ongoing credit needs. Representatives from the FDIC, the System, and others have asked whether System institutions, directly or in partnership with other market participants, could provide a source of credit and liquidity to borrowers whose operations are financed with agricultural or cooperative loans affected by commercial bank failures.
On May 18, 2010, the FCA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend FCA regulations governing purchase and sale of interests in loans (75 FR 27660). The proposed rule would allow System institutions to purchase certain agricultural or cooperative loans of failed commercial
After reviewing the comments, the FCA is adopting this final rule with two changes from the proposed rule. First, the FCA originally proposed a due diligence process in which a System institution would conduct a preliminary review of loans for eligibility prior to purchase, conduct a more thorough due diligence review after purchase, and divest ineligible loans. In response to the comments, FCA now modifies the final rule to eliminate the two-tiered due diligence process and to authorize only the purchase of agricultural loans that are eligible for System financing. Second, in response to comments concerning the need for the rule and those raising concerns on the safety and soundness of acquiring failed bank loans and out-of-territory loans, the final rule requires System institutions to provide information on loans made under authority of this section to FCA in the Reports of Condition and Performance.
FCA regulations currently provide that a System institution may not purchase an interest in a loan from a non-System institution except for the purpose of pooling and securitizing loans to sell to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation unless the interest is a participation interest.
We received approximately 94 comment letters from commercial banks and their trade groups, the Farm Credit Council, a few System institutions and individuals. All non-System entities opposed the proposed rule while the System entities supported it. The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) submitted a comment letter dated October 18, 2010, in which it discusses the results of a survey it conducted of over 2000 agricultural banks to determine their opinions on the proposed rule. We treat the ICBA's summary of the results of its survey and all discussion of it as a comment of the ICBA. We discuss all relevant comments to our proposed rule and our responses below. Those areas of the proposed rule not receiving comment are finalized as proposed unless otherwise discussed in this preamble.
Most of the non-System commenters objected that the rule gives System institutions authority beyond that granted by Congress and expands the Farm Credit mission beyond the intent of the Act. These commenters contend that the Act expressly identifies the limited authority of System institutions to buy, sell and participate in non-System loans. They opine that the FDIC is comparable to a non-System lender and that Federal law does not grant authority to System institutions to purchase loans from non-System lenders. They object that ineligible loans that are distressed would remain in the FCS and borrowers could get the benefit of borrower rights. They state that by providing restructuring to ineligible distressed loans and financial services to ineligible borrowers, the FCA contravenes the Act. A few commenters contend that the FCA is suggesting that all powers not denied by Congress are therefore granted by Congress, and that this is disingenuous because obviously Congress cannot foresee all potential lending activities.
Several System institutions commented that the FCA should authorize System institutions to purchase loans from FDIC successor banks, to purchase whole loans from non-System entities whenever it would benefit rural America, or that the FCA should allow the purchase of interests in all eligible loans.
The Supreme Court has held that the business of banking is not limited to authorized activities specifically identified or enumerated in a statute.
One non-System commenter contends that the FCA has, in the past, interpreted the Act to prohibit the proposed action, and that the FCA's authority to draft regulations does not authorize the FCA to go beyond the authority that limits the participation, selling and buying of loans with non-System banks.
The FCA has in the past determined that System institutions may not purchase whole loans from commercial banks. As the result of bank failures in rural areas, the FCA has for the first
The FCA does not agree with the comments of the System institutions that it should broaden the reach of the rule.
Non-System commenters object to the provision of the proposed rule that would allow ineligible loans to remain within the System until divested. They object that the proposed rule would allow System institutions to offer financial services to borrowers who are not eligible under the Act and would offer financial remedies that are statutorily exclusive to those who meet eligibility requirements. They conclude that the proposed rule is contrary to statutory intent. Several commenters state that there should be an outright prohibition against purchasing ineligible loans, and that if the FCA cannot assure that loans purchased are within the legal requirements for System institutions, then FCA has no business making such a proposal. Many commenters object that the proposed rule does not set forth a required timeline for divesting illegal loans, and several commenters suggest that System institutions with ineligible loans should be subject to penalties.
One commenter states that the Act and existing regulations plainly identify loan eligibility, carefully keeping with the limited purposes Congress intended. This commenter states that under the proposed rule the ineligible loan, one not related to the mission of the Act and its congressionally defined mission or one in which the borrower does not acquire voting stock, would remain within the System until divested. Several commenters stated that the result of the rule would be that the System institutions would hold all manner of loans not related to farming and agriculture. One commenter states that if a loan is ineligible due to borrower status or loan type then that is the end of the analysis, and the FCS institution is not authorized to provide financial services. The commenter concludes that financing that is ineligible based on loan type or membership cannot be made eligible by being identified as distressed. The commenter further opines that a System institution cannot expeditiously divest of ineligible distressed loans in which it has provided restructuring financing, because the restructuring process takes time. One System institution commented that requiring a second due diligence review after loan purchase and divestiture will result in a substantial discount in the bid amount.
This rule requires System institutions to establish a program offering each eligible borrower of a purchased loan the opportunity to acquire voting stock. We expect System institutions to have a fair and equitable program in place to make membership available to all interested borrowers. We anticipate that pursuant to such a program all borrowers will choose to become members. If, however, a borrower chooses not to acquire voting stock, the borrower will not be entitled to borrower rights under this rule, and § 614.4325(b)(3)(iv) is modified accordingly.
The ICBA comments that when loans are available for bidding, the competition in the bidding process is adequate to aggressive. It comments that there is robust competition among community banks for credit-seeking customers. Several commenters state that the rule allows System institutions to leverage high capital levels to spur new growth at the expense of private sector lenders. Many non-System commenters state that they are not aware of a lack of buyers of loans or loan pools from the FDIC after bank failures. They state that there are plenty of bidders on good quality loans. They comment that System institutions are not needed in the bidding process as there is no lack of commercial and community bank buyers for loans sold by FDIC. One commenter states that System institutions rarely reach out to help with loans that have material weakness. This commenter states that System institutions cherry pick the best loans from the community and that if the System needs loans it should reach out to farmers who need cheap credit but do not qualify for bank loans.
Some non-System commenters opine that the rule allows System institutions to shop for high quality loans, including ineligible loans, while ignoring marginal credits. Many non-System commenters assert that the rule allows System institutions to use their GSE status and tax advantages to undercut the bidding of community banks in the FDIC auction process.
Many non-System commenters assert that because community banks have paid premiums to the Deposit Insurance Fund to enable the FDIC to resolve failed FDIC-insured banks, it would be unfair to allow non-paying FCS institutions to compete in bidding on loans of failed banks. They state that the rule allows the System to leverage its GSE status, and the fact that the System does not pay premiums into the Deposit Insurance Fund results in a gross unfairness to community banks.
Many non-System commenters question why FCA would propose a rule that would allow a System institution to purchase pools of loans without first obtaining the prior consent of the System institution in whose lending territory the borrower's agricultural operation is wholly or partially located. Many commenters state that this practice is not consistent with cooperative principles or a cooperative system and that out-of-territory loan purchases would pose safety and soundness issues for FCS lenders bidding on loans in territories with which the lenders are unfamiliar.
One commenter states that the rule allows System institutions to hold more than the usual volume of extra territorial loans and that capital that should be reserved to finance farming and agriculture within a territory would be diverted to purchase loans outside of the territory, some of which would be distressed and not related to farming, resulting in a loss of available capital in the district. The commenter stated that System institutions will expend resources to manage loans far outside their districts, resulting in added economic risks associated with the purchase of loans from failed banks. One commenter states that it appears the FCA is willing to allow System institutions to engage in significant risks in the quality of loans purchased just so they can achieve greater growth.
As a practical matter the chartered territory of the System institution located closest to the failed commercial bank would never be exactly in line with the headquarters of the eligible agricultural borrowers of the failed bank. It would be impractical for the FDIC to package loans by FCS territory. The rule requires the purchasing System institution to notify the System institutions in whose lending territory the borrowers' headquarters are wholly or partially located to alert them to the purchase and, as noted in the preamble to the proposal, consider partnering with that institution if the purchasing institution cannot adequately service a purchased loan located outside of its chartered territory. However, System institutions must comply with § 614.4070 if a new loan is subsequently made to the borrower.
To address safety and soundness concerns, we have added to the final rule a provision requiring System institutions to provide information on loans purchased under authority of this section in the Reports of Condition and Performance. This allows the FCA to monitor loans acquired through this program to make adjustments as necessary if safety and soundness issues arise.
Several System commenters stated that the FCA should allow FCS institutions to purchase whole loans from FDIC successor banks and from non-System entities whenever it would benefit rural America. Many non-System commenters objected to an extension of the rule to successor banks.
The rule is intended to provide liquidity to areas in need of credit incident to a bank failure. The FCA does not intend to extend the rule beyond the purchase of loans directly from the FDIC either in its receivership or corporate capacity.
This section is finalized as proposed.
This section is finalized as proposed. See discussion on authority above.
In response to the comments, and for the reasons discussed above, this section authorizes System institutions to purchase loans from the FDIC, but now requires participating System institutions to conduct thorough due diligence prior to purchase.
This section is finalized as proposed.
This section is finalized as proposed.
Commenters object to this section because it could result in allowing borrowers of distressed ineligible loans certain borrower rights. In response to the comments, the FCA has modified the rule to authorize purchase of only eligible loans. Therefore, only borrowers of eligible loans will be afforded borrower rights under this section. This section is finalized as proposed.
In response to the comments, the FCA has modified the rule to authorize only the purchase of eligible loans. Therefore, a provision addressing divestiture of ineligible loans is unnecessary. This section is modified from the proposed rule accordingly.
To ensure adequate oversight and disclosure of loans purchased under this section, we adopt a new paragraph (vi), which provides that each System institution shall include information on loans purchased under authority of this section in the Reports of Condition and Performance required under § 621.12 of this chapter, in the format prescribed by FCA reporting instructions.
FCA makes System “call report” data publicly available through its Web site at
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, part 614 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128; secs. 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 4.14D, 4.14E, 4.18, 4.18A, 4.19, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.36, 4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2097, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d, 2202e, 2206, 2206a, 2207, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, 2279a-2, 2279b, 2279c-1, 2279f, 2279f-1, 2279aa, 2279aa-5); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639.
(d) A bank or association chartered under title I or II of the Act may finance eligible borrower operations conducted wholly or partially outside its chartered territory through the purchase of loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in compliance with § 614.4325(b)(3), provided:
(1) Notice is given to the Farm Credit System institution(s) chartered to serve the territory where the headquarters of the borrower's operation being financed is located; and
(2) After loan purchase, additional financing of eligible borrower operations complies with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
(b)
(1) For the purpose of pooling and securitizing such loans under title VIII of the Act;
(2) Purchases of a participation interest that qualifies under the institution's lending authority, as set forth in subpart A of this part, and meets the requirements of § 614.4330 of this subpart;
(3) Loans purchased from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, provided that the Farm Credit System institution with direct lending authority under title I, II or III of the Act:
(i) Conducts a thorough due diligence prior to purchase to ensure that the loan, or pool of loans, qualifies under the institution's lending authority as set forth in subpart A of this part, and meets scope of financing and eligibility requirements in subpart A or subpart B of part 613;
(ii) Obtains funding bank approval if a Farm Credit System association purchases loans or pools of loans that exceed 10 percent of total its capital;
(iii) Establishes a program whereby each eligible borrower of the loan purchased is offered an opportunity to acquire the institution's required minimum amount of voting stock;
(iv) Determines whether each loan purchased, except for loans purchased that could be financed only by a bank for cooperatives under title III of the Act, is a distressed loan as defined in § 617.7000, and provides borrowers of purchased loans who acquire voting stock the rights afforded in § 617.7000, subparts A, and D through G if the loan is distressed; and
(v) Divests eligible purchased loans when the borrowers elect not to acquire stock under the program offered in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section in the same manner it would divest loans under its current business practices.
(vi) Includes information on loans purchased under authority of this section in the Reports of Condition and Performance required under § 621.12 of this chapter, in the format prescribed by FCA reporting instructions.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)
The rule is effective June 24, 2011.
Frank Kressman, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.
Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) to include full share insurance coverage, beyond the Standard Maximum Share Insurance Amount (SMSIA),
In December 2010, the NCUA Board issued a proposed rule to clarify its interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions regarding noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. 75 FR 80367 (December 22, 2010). The following summarizes the issues discussed in the proposal.
Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the share insurance provisions of the FCU Act (12 U.S.C. 1787(k)(1)) to provide separate insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Accordingly, as discussed in detail below, NCUA proposed to revise its share insurance regulations in 12 CFR Part 745 to include this new temporary share insurance account category.
The proposed rule incorporated the definition of noninterest-bearing transaction account in section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 343 defines a noninterest-bearing transaction account as “an account or deposit maintained at an insured credit union with respect to which interest is neither accrued nor paid; on which the account holder or depositor is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone or other electronic media transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third parties or others; and on which the insured credit union does not reserve the right to require advance notice of an intended withdrawal.” This definition of noninterest-bearing transaction account encompasses only traditional, noninterest-bearing demand deposit (checking or share draft) accounts that allow for an unlimited number of deposits and withdrawals at any time,
Under the proposal, whether an account is considered noninterest-bearing or nondividend bearing is determined by the terms of the account agreement and not by the fact that the dividend rate on an account may be zero percent at a particular point in time. For example, an insured credit union might offer an account with a dividend rate of zero percent except when the balance exceeds a prescribed threshold. Similarly, an account that normally bears dividends might have a dividend rate of zero for a particular period if the board of directors of the insured credit union where the account is maintained determines not to, or is prohibited from, declaring a dividend for that period.
Such an account would not qualify as a noninterest-bearing transaction account even when the balance is less than the prescribed threshold or no dividend is declared and the dividend rate is zero percent for a particular period. Under the proposed rule, such an account would be treated as an interest-bearing or dividend-bearing account at all times because the account agreement provides for the payment of dividends under certain circumstances. However, under the proposal, the waiving of fees on an account would not be treated as the earning of dividends. For example, an insured credit union can sometimes waive fees or provide fee-reducing credits for members with share draft accounts. Under the proposed rule, such account features would not prevent an account from qualifying as a noninterest-bearing transaction account, as long as the account otherwise satisfies the definition of a noninterest-bearing transaction account.
The proposed rule's definition of noninterest-bearing transaction account would include official checks issued by insured credit unions, such as negotiable cashier's or certified checks. Ownership of such instruments and the right to full insurance coverage are determined pursuant to § 745.11 of NCUA's share insurance rules regarding accounts evidenced by negotiable instruments.
Under the proposal, funds swept (or transferred) from a share account to either another type of share account or a non-deposit account are treated as being in the account to which the funds were transferred prior to the time of failure. For example, if pursuant to an agreement between an insured credit union and its member, funds are swept daily from a noninterest-bearing transaction account to an account or product that is not a noninterest-bearing transaction account, then the funds in the resulting account or product would not be eligible for full insurance coverage as a noninterest-bearing transaction account. However, the proposed rule includes an exception from this treatment of swept funds in situations where funds are swept from a noninterest-bearing transaction account to a noninterest-bearing savings account, such as an MMA. Often referred to as “reserve sweeps,” these products could entail an arrangement in which a single account is divided into two sub-accounts, a transaction account and an MMA. The amount and frequency of sweeps are often determined by an algorithm designed to minimize required reserves. In some situations, members may be unaware that this sweep mechanism is in place. Under the proposed rule, such accounts would be considered noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Apart from this exception for reserve sweeps, MMAs and noninterest-bearing savings accounts do not qualify as noninterest-bearing transaction accounts.
As noted in the proposal, pursuant to section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act, all funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts are fully insured, without limit. As specifically provided for in section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act, this unlimited coverage is separate from, and in addition to, the coverage provided to members with respect to other accounts held at an insured credit union. This means that funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts will not be counted for purposes of determining the amount of share insurance on shares held in other accounts, and in other rights and capacities, at the same insured credit union. For example, if a member has a $225,000 share certificate and a no-dividend share draft account with a balance of $300,000, both held in a single ownership capacity, he or she would be fully insured for $525,000 (plus dividends accrued on the share certificate), assuming the member has no other single-ownership funds at the same credit union. First, coverage of $225,000 (plus accrued dividends) would be provided for the share certificate as a single ownership account (12 CFR 745.3) up to the SMSIA of $250,000. Second, full coverage of the $300,000 share draft account would be provided separately, despite the share draft account also being held as a single ownership account, because the account
In the proposal, NCUA imposed notice and disclosure requirements to ensure that credit union members are aware of and understand what types of accounts will be covered by the temporary share insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. The proposal included two such notice requirements. The first requires insured credit unions to post a prescribed notice in their main offices, each branch and, if applicable, on their Web sites.
The second notice requires insured credit unions to notify members individually of any action they take to affect the share insurance coverage of funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Although this second notice requirement continues to be mandatory in the final rule, it is noteworthy that NCUA does not impose specific requirements regarding the form of the notice. Rather, NCUA expects insured credit unions to act in a commercially reasonable manner and to comply with applicable state and federal laws and regulations in informing members of changes to their account agreements.
NCUA received seven comments to the proposed rule issued in December 2010. Many of the commenters acknowledged that the proposal necessarily adhered to the standards mandated in the Dodd-Frank Act regarding noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Four commenters specifically noted their support for the rule. The other commenters did not oppose the proposal, but they expressed some concern or made some suggestion for improving the proposal.
One commenter suggested NCUA should update its website regarding the share insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. NCUA agrees this would be helpful in ensuring credit unions are fully aware of the additional share insurance coverage and the conditions under which it is available. NCUA will update its website in this regard.
Some commenters expressed concern over how the proposal would affect the share insurance deposit, equaling 1% of insured shares, which each insured credit union is required to maintain with the NCUA (“NCUA Share Insurance Capitalization Deposit”).
They requested NCUA discuss this in the final rule. The NCUA Share Insurance Capitalization Deposit is based on a credit union's insured shares. NCUA's 5300 Call Report considers shares in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts part of a credit union's total insured shares. Accordingly, a credit union's NCUA Share Insurance Capitalization Deposit will be based, in part, on the amount of insured shares its members have in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts.
Other commenters requested NCUA shorten the prescribed notice required by the proposal. They stated a shorter, more succinct notice would be more effective and less confusing. NCUA believes this is a good recommendation and adopts a shorter version of the prescribed notice in this final rule. All other aspects of the proposed rule are adopted as proposed.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (those under $10 million in assets). The amendments enhance share insurance coverage for members with no significant direct cost to small credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA has determined and certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The new disclosure requirements are contained in § 745.14(c)(1) and 745.14(c)(2). More specifically, § 745.14(c)(1) requires that each insured credit union that offers noninterest-bearing transaction accounts post a “Notice of Changes In Temporary NCUA Insurance Coverage For Transaction Accounts” in the lobby of its main office and domestic branches and, if it offers internet deposit services, on its Web site. Section 745.14(c)(2) requires that insured credit unions notify members of any action that affects the share insurance coverage of their funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts.
The disclosure requirement in § 745.14(c)(1) would normally be subject to PRA. However, because NCUA has provided the specific text for the notice and allows for no variance in the language, the disclosure is excluded from coverage under PRA because “the public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not included” within the definition of “collection of information.” 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, NCUA is not submitting the § 745.14(c)(1) disclosure to OMB for review.
The disclosure requirement in § 745.14(c)(2) regarding sweep accounts and any action that affects the share insurance coverage of funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts is mandatory for all insured credit unions, although insured credit unions would retain flexibility regarding the form of the notice. Therefore, in conjunction with publication of this rule, NCUA has submitted to OMB a request to review the estimated burden associated with this disclosure requirement, and that approval is pending.
The estimated burden for the proposed new disclosure under § 745.14(c)(2) is as follows:
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, Public Law 104-121, provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office within OMB, has reviewed this rule and determined that, for purposes of SBREFA, this is not a major rule.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This rule would not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Share insurance.
For the reasons discussed above, NCUA amends 12 CFR Part 745 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1757, 1765, 1766, 1781, 1782, 1787, 1789.
(f) The term
(1) With respect to which either interest or dividends are neither accrued nor paid;
(2) On which the account holder or depositor is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone or other electronic media transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third parties or others; and
(3) On which the insured credit union does not reserve the right to require advance notice of an intended withdrawal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
All funds in a “noninterest-bearing transaction account” are insured in full by the National Credit Union Administration through December 31, 2012. This temporary unlimited coverage is in addition to, and separate from, the coverage of at least $250,000 available to members under the NCUA's general share insurance rules.
The term “noninterest-bearing transaction account” includes a traditional share draft account (or demand deposit account) on which the insured credit union pays no interest or dividend. It does
(2) If an insured credit union uses sweep arrangements, modifies the terms of an account, or takes other actions that result in funds no longer being eligible for full coverage under this section, the insured credit union must notify affected members and clearly advise them, in writing, that such actions will affect their share insurance coverage.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This final rule is effective May 25, 2011. The effective date for AD 2010-24-13 remains January 20, 2011.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
Airworthiness Directive 2010-24-13, amendment 39-16532 (75 FR 78591,
As published, the reference to “sub-section number is `28-60-06' ” in paragraph (g) of the regulatory section is incorrect. The correct sub-section number is 20-60-06.
No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being published in the
The effective date of this AD remains January 20, 2011.
In the
(g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: For airplanes with a P10 panel installed, add two new indicator lights on the P10 panel to inform the captain and first officer of a low pressure condition in the left and right override/jettison pumps of the center wing tanks, and, for airplanes that do not have the warning panel (P10 panel) installed, add a mounting bracket and two new indicator lights to the Autopilot Flight Director panel; and replace the left and right override/jettison switches on the M154 fuel control module on the P4 panel with improved switches; and do the associated wiring changes. Accomplish these actions by doing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2288, Revision 1, dated January 21, 2010, except where that service bulletin states “20-60-00,” the correct sub-section number is “20-60-06,” and except as described in Table 1 of this AD.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to final regulations.
This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9519) that were published in the
This correction is effective May 25, 2011 and applicable April 1, 2011.
Janice R. Feldman, (202) 622-8488 (not a toll free number).
The final regulations (TD 9519) that are the subject of this correction are under section 7811 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations (TD 9519) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9519), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2011-7770, is corrected as follows:
On page 18060, column 1, under the paragraph heading “Background”, line 3 from the top of the paragraph, the language “under sections 7811 of the Internal” is corrected to read “under section 7811 of the Internal”.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS CALIFORNIA (SSN 781) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective May 25, 2011 and is applicable beginning May 13, 2011.
Lieutenant Jaewon Choi, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR Part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS CALIFORNIA (SSN 781) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the vertical placement of the masthead light; Annex I, paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the vertical separation of the anchor lights and
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Navy amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulations.
The Coast Guard is announcing specific dates and times for Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones occurring in the Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone. This action is necessary to protect marine traffic and spectators from the hazards associated with powerboat races, regattas, boat parades, rowing and paddling boat races, swim events, and fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the Special Local Regulation area or Safety Zone without permission of the Captain of the Port.
The regulations for events described in 33 CFR 100.120 and 33 CFR 165.171 will be enforced during the times and dates specified in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The earliest event
If you have questions on this notice, call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Terence Leahy, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone 207-767-0398, e-mail
The Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones listed in 33 CFR 100.120 and 33 CFR 165.171. These regulations will be enforced for the duration of each event, on the dates indicated in Tables 1 and 2.
The Coast Guard may patrol each event area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.” Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England. For information about regulations and restrictions for waterway use during the effective periods of these events, please refer to 33 CFR 100.120 and 33 CFR 165.171.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.120, 33 CFR 165.171, and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the
State Department.
Final rule.
This final rule makes one administrative change to the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR). It revises the DOSAR to allow the appointment of selected non-U.S. citizen locally employed staff, i.e., Foreign Nationals and Third Country Nationals, as contracting officers for acquisitions at $25,000 and below. This change will permit streamlined procurement processes at applicable Department of State overseas posts.
Barbara Latvanas, Procurement Analyst, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., Suite 900, State Annex Number 27, Washington, DC 20522; telephone number: 703-516-1755; e-mail address:
The Department published a proposed rule, Public Notice 5684 at 72 FR 4475, January 31, 2007, with a request for comments to expand contracting authority at applicable overseas posts (Embassies and Consulates) to selected non-U.S. citizen locally employed staff (LES) for acquisitions at $25,000 and below. Because the current DOSAR language indicates that all contracting officers must be U.S. citizens, a change to the regulation is required. By way of background, the Department conducted a pilot program at 15 overseas posts in the following locations: Bridgetown, Barbados; Brussels, Belgium; Ljubljana, Slovenia; Melbourne, Australia; Munich, Germany; Nicosia, Cyprus; Oslo, Norway; Paris, France; Seoul, Korea; Singapore; Tallinn, Estonia; The Hague, Netherlands; Tokyo, Japan; Valletta, Malta; and Vienna, Austria. To ensure adequate rule of law, each of the locations involved in the pilot program had a score of at least 5.0 on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, available at the following Web site:
• Available only at posts with a score of least 5.0 on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index;
• Available only to selected LES staff with a minimum of five years of Department of State experience, unquestioned integrity, and one week of specified simplified acquisition training;
• Review of LES transactions on a monthly basis by a U.S. citizen contracting officer; and
• Periodic evaluation of LES delegated procurement by the Office of the Procurement Executive.
This DOSAR change is administrative in nature and is intended to provide management flexibility to Department of State overseas posts. The proposed rule was discussed in detail in Public Notice 5684. No public comments were received. The Department is now promulgating a final rule with no changes from the proposed rule.
The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order.
The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended by Executive Order 13563. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order.
This rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, title 48, chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. 2658.
(c)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule implements measures that were approved in Amendment 5 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) developed Amendment 5 to bring the FMP into compliance with the annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This rule establishes the mechanisms for specifying ACLs and AMs and sets the annual catch target (ACT) and associated measures for days-at-sea (DAS) and trip limits for the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA). NMFS disapproved the proposed ACT, and associated measures, for the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) on the grounds that they are not consistent with the most recent scientific advice. This final rule implements three additional Amendment 5 management measures to promote efficiency and reduce waste, brings the biological and management reference points in the Monkfish FMP into compliance with recently revised National Standard 1 (NS1) Guidelines, and makes one correction to the monkfish weight conversion factors.
Effective May 25, 2011.
An environmental assessment (EA) prepared for Amendment 5 at the time of its submission by the Councils describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. NMFS prepared an Addendum to the Amendment 5 EA for the purpose of analyzing the potential impacts of the amendment on Atlantic sturgeon. Copies of Amendment 5, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. Copies of the Addendum to Amendment 5 are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also available online at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the Northeast Regional Office of NMFS at 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and by e-mail to
Allison McHale, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9103; fax: (978) 281-9135.
This final rule implements approved measures in Amendment 5, which was partially approved by NMFS on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on April 28, 2011. A proposed rule to implement the measures in Amendment 5 published in the
A recent assessment of the monkfish resource was conducted during the first half of 2010 by the 50th Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 50). The full assessment report was released in August 2010 and can be found at
The 2010 assessment panel expressed serious concerns regarding the high levels of scientific uncertainty in the assessment results. The Monkfish Assessment Summary Report for 2010 states, “The assessment results continue to be uncertain due to cumulative effects of under-reported landings, unknown discards during the 1980s, uncertainty in survey indices, and incomplete understanding of key biological parameters such as age and growth, longevity, natural mortality and stock structure contributing to retrospective patterns primarily in the northern management area.” Unlike the Data Poor Working Group (DPWG) assessment conducted in 2007 (see Monkfish Assessment Summary Report at
NMFS disapproved the proposed Amendment 5 ACT for the NFMA, and the specification of DAS and trip limits to achieve that ACT. The proposed NFMA ACT and specification of DAS and trip limits were included in Amendment 5 based on the recommended interim ABC, and assessments available at the time the amendment document was finalized by the Councils. Specifically, Amendment 5 proposed an ACT for the NFMA of 10,750 mt, an allocation of 40 DAS, and trip limits of 1,250 lb (567 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category A and C vessels, and 800 lb (363 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category B and D vessels. For the SFMA, Amendment 5 proposed an ACT of 11,513 mt, and allocation of 28 DAS, and trip limits of 550 lb (249 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category A and C vessels, and 450 lb (204 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category B and D vessels.
The results of SARC 50 became available after the Councils took final action on Amendment 5. In response to the new assessment, the New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) revisited its previous ABC recommendation at a meeting in August 2010. The SSC, after much discussion concerning the uncertainty with the assessment and alternate methods for calculating ABC to account for this uncertainty, agreed to maintain the existing interim ABC approach it previously recommended. Using this interim ABC approach, the SSC recalculated the recommended ABCs to incorporate the results of SARC 50. Thus, based on this recalculation using the ABC control rule approved in Amendment 5, the ABCs are automatically revised to be 7,592 mt for the NFMA, and 12,316 mt for the SFMA. The result is a revised ABC for the NFMA that is 3,158 mt lower than the NFMA ACT of 17,485 mt in Amendment 5 that was calculated based on the 2007 DPWG Assessment, creating an inconsistency with the recalculated ABC. Based on this inconsistency, NMFS disapproved the DAS and trip limit specifications for the NFMA in Amendment 5. Disapproval of the SFMA specifications was not required because the recalculated ABC for the SFMA, even though lower than the Amendment 5 SFMA ABC of 13,326 mt, is still 803 mt higher than the Councils' recommended ACT for that area. Although this reduces the Amendment 5 recommended buffer percentage between the ACT and the ABC/ACL for the SFMA to only 6.5 percent, it still provides a sufficient buffer to account for management uncertainty in order to ensure that catch does not exceed the ABC/ACL for this portion of the fishery. Therefore, NMFS determined that the Amendment 5 SFMA specifications for monkfish are still consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
Because it was too late for the Councils to revise Amendment 5 to reflect the new recommendations, in light of the need to get the amendment in place as quickly as possible in the new fishing year, the NEFMC initiated Framework Adjustment 7 (Framework 7) at its September 28-30, 2010, meeting to revise the disapproved ACT for the NFMA to be consistent with the recalculated ABC for the NFMA, and update the biomass (B) reference points of B
The current NFMA measures, which will remain in place until Framework 7 is implemented, result in a lower TAL than was recommended by the Councils in the framework. Additionally, NFMA landings have been well below the TAL for the past 2 years (29 percent below in 2008, and 33 percent below in 2009). Thus, NMFS does not expect delaying action on the establishment of an ACT for the NFMA would result in landings exceeding the ACTs being considered in Framework 7 during the 2011 fishing year (FY), which began May 1, 2011. Because this final rule is being implemented after the start of FY 2011, any monkfish landings that occurred between May 1, 2011, and the time this final rule is effective will accrue against the 2011 ACT and be used to determine whether AMs are triggered.
The biological and management reference points currently in the Monkfish FMP are used to determine if overfishing is occurring on either stock (F
• MSY shall be expressed as the product of the fishing mortality threshold, (F
• OY shall be set equivalent to the ACT, which is described under approved measure 4 below;
• OFL shall be expressed as the product of F
• ABC shall be expressed as the product of the average exploitation rate during the recent period of stable or increasing trend in biomass in both management units (determined to be 1999-2006 NFMA and 2000-2006 for SFMA) and the most recent estimate or index of exploitable biomass.
This action establishes a framework for the establishment of ABCs and ACLs for each management area. As described under Approved Measure 1, this action implements a control rule for establishing the ABC that is to be based upon information from the most recent stock assessment, in this case SARC 50. This ABC control rule is based upon the calculation method recommended and approved by the SSC. If new information becomes available through a stock assessment, the ABCs will be recalculated based upon this new information, with subsequent review and approval by the SSC. If the SSC concurs with this recalculation, the ABCs for each management area will be automatically updated, requiring no further action by the Councils. However, if the SSC does not concur with the recalculation and recommends an alternative approach to calculating the ABCs, the Councils would be required to take action through the annual or in-season framework adjustment process in the FMP to update the ABCs based upon the SSC's recommended method.
Given that scientific uncertainty is incorporated into the calculation of the ABCs, as discussed under Approved Measure 3, the ACLs are set equivalent to the respective ABCs for each management area. Thus, like the ABCs, the ACLs are self-adjusting, based upon the best available science. Council
The specification of ACTs for each management area is conducted independently of the ABC/ACL calculation, but considers the size of the buffer between the proposed ACT and calculated ACL in the context of management uncertainty. This action requires that ACTs be established for each management area at some level below the calculated ABC/ACL. Although the Councils recommended establishing ACTs for 3 years in Amendment 5, it does not require that the ACTs be revised every 3 years. The Councils may, at any time, choose to revise the ACTs based on new information through either the annual review process or the framework adjustment process in the FMP, or specify ACTs in a future action for a different time period, that may be more or less than 3 years, as determined to be appropriate based upon the stock assessment schedule for this species and other relevant information.
Amendment 5 requires ACLs for the two management areas to be set at a level equal to the SSC's recommended ABCs. Amendment 5 does not require a buffer between the ABC and the ACL because scientific uncertainty has been accounted for within the ABCs. The Councils determined in Amendment 5 that there was no technical basis for setting the ACLs for each management area below their respective ABCs. In its March 30, 2009, report, the SSC supported the Councils' ACL recommendation and noted that “the magnitude of recent catch has low risk of exceeding the OFL or the proposed interim ABC” since, in 2006, total catch was only 32 percent of the proposed OFL for the NFMA, and 34 percent of the proposed OFL for the SFMA; and total catch in 2007 was estimated by the Monkfish Plan Development Team (PDT) to be 24 percent of the proposed OFL for the NFMA, and 31 percent of the proposed OFL for the SFMA. The calculated ABCs/ACLs incorporating the results of the 2010 stock assessment are 7,592 mt for the NFMA, and 12,316 mt for the SFMA.
This final rule institutes a proactive AM that establishes ACTs for each management area to account for management uncertainty. In Amendment 5, the Councils recommended an ACT of 10,750 mt for the NFMA and 11,513 mt for the SFMA. This final rule implements the ACT recommended for the SFMA, but disapproves the ACT for the NFMA on the grounds that it is not consistent with the best scientific information available, as described under “Disapproved Measure” in this preamble.
This final rule also establishes a reactive AM that requires the Council to deduct, through an in-season or annual framework adjustment, on a pound-for-pound basis, any overage of the ACL from the ACT in the year following the FY in which the overage was identified. Management measures (i.e., DAS and trip limits) must also be adjusted, if necessary, to ensure the revised ACT is not exceeded. For example, if overage of the 2011 ACL for the NFMA is determined to have occurred upon review of final 2011 landings sometime during FY 2012, the Councils would adjust the ACT and develop revised management measures for implementation during FY 2013.
Under this reactive AM, the Councils are responsible for assessing annual landings in relation to the ACL, and adjusting the ACT and associated management measures as required. However, if the Councils fail to take action, the Regional Administrator has the authority to adjust the ACT, and implement revised DAS and/or trip limits.
This final rule specifies a DAS allocation and trip limits only for the SFMA because the ACT for the NFMA was disapproved. As stated previously in this preamble, the FY 2010 DAS allocation and trip limits for the NFMA will remain in effect until an updated ACT and associated DAS and trip limits are established through Framework 7, which is scheduled for implementation during the summer of 2011. The DAS allocation and trip limits for the SFMA recommended by the Councils in Amendment 5 and being implemented in this final rule are 28 DAS, and trip limits of 550 lb (249 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category A and C vessels, and 450 lb (204 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category B, D, and H vessels.
This final rule implements a measure that allows vessels to land up to the equivalent of one additional daily monkfish trip limit than would otherwise be authorized based on the vessel's monkfish DAS usage for that trip, provided the vessel notifies NMFS of the overage via vessel monitoring system (VMS) prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line, or via phone using the Agency's interactive voice response (IVR) system at least 1 hr prior to landing. To account for the trip limit overage, the vessel's monkfish DAS charge shall be increased to the next 24-hr period plus 1 minute. For example, if a limited access monkfish Category C vessel fishing in the SFMA has two monkfish trip limits (i.e., 1,100 lb (499 kg) tail weight) on board, but has only been declared into the monkfish DAS program for 15 hrs, the vessel may land the additional trip limit, if NMFS is properly notified. The vessel's monkfish DAS charge would then be adjusted from 15 hrs to 24 hrs and 1 minute.
In order to effectively implement this provision, NMFS has added a form to the VMS system that a vessel operator would complete and send to NMFS prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on the vessel's return to port. With respect to recommendation in Amendment 5 that vessels not equipped with a VMS unit call-in a trip limit overage when outside the VMS demarcation line, NMFS recognizes that it may not be feasible for all vessels to provide a call-in notification via cell phone when outside the VMS demarcation line. Accordingly, in this final rule, NMFS, pursuant to its Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) authority revises the Councils' recommendation by requiring vessels without VMS to notify NMFS of the trip limit overage by calling into the IVR system at least 1 hour prior to landing.
This final rule implements a measure that authorizes the landing of monkfish heads separately from the body by listing monkfish heads as an authorized product form under § 648.94(a), and establishing an appropriate head-to-total weight conversion factor to aid enforcement of the daily trip limits. Vessels may land monkfish heads separate from the body, provided the total weight of heads does not exceed the appropriate total weight of tails on board (see “Technical Amendment” below for details on the conversion factors).
This final rule authorizes changes to be made to this RSA program through a framework adjustment in order to make necessary improvements to this program in a timelier manner. The Councils are
This final rule includes, under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) authority, an amendment that adjusts the conversion factor for whole monkfish to reflect how monkfish are actually landed. Previously, whole monkfish were assumed to be landed in true whole form (i.e., live weight). However, current industry practice is to “gut” the whole fish (i.e., remove the stomach, liver, and other entrails) at sea, and land in this form. The current tail-to-whole-weight conversion factor for monkfish is 3.32. However, a more accurate tail-to-whole-weight (landed) conversion factor is 2.91, which reflects the conversion to a monkfish that still has its head attached, but its guts removed. This technical correction to the conversion factor results in a reduction in the whole-weight equivalent trip limit, but not to the tail-weight trip limit, which is the value recommended by the Councils. Additionally, this changes the monkfish heads conversion factor proposed by the Councils from 2.32 to 1.91 to be consistent with this corrected conversion factor.
In addition to the above amendment, this final rule also removes the letter of authorization (LOA) requirement at § 648.92(b)(1)(iii) for vessels fishing in the NFMA with a VMS unit since this requirement was removed from the general area declaration requirements at § 648.94(f) in the final rule implementing Framework Adjustment 5 to the Monkfish FMP (73 FR 22831; April 28, 2008).
This final rule also clarifies the meeting requirements for framework adjustments with respect to this joint FMP to reflect that one framework meeting must be held by each of the two Councils, versus one framework meeting overall.
Finally, this final rule updates the specification and framework adjustment processes for the Monkfish FMP to include procedures for specifying ACLs and AMs.
Four comments were received on the proposed rule and the amendment, from three individuals (one individual commented separately on both the proposed rule and the amendment). Two commenters did not support the amendment, while the third commenter did not express specific support or lack thereof for the amendment, but focused on the need for a broader approach to fishery management.
This section summarizes the principal comments in the individual comment letters that pertained to Amendment 5 and the proposed rule, and NMFS's response to those comments. Any comments received that were not specific to the management measures in the Amendment 5 proposed rule, or in the amendment document, are not addressed in this final rule.
Subsequent to the submission of Amendment 5 by the NEFMC on September 20, 2010, NMFS published two
1. In § 648.92(b), the proposed changes to paragraphs (1)(i), (iv) and (v); and (2)(i) are not included in this final rule due to the disapproval of the NFMA ACT and associated DAS and trip limits. Additionally, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is modified to reflect that the current coastwide DAS allocation of 31 DAS will remain in effect.
2. In § 648.94(a), the introductory sentence has been revised to clarify that vessels may not possess or land only monkfish heads, but that any monkfish heads possessed or landed must correspond to an appropriate amount of tails.
3. In § 648.94(b)(1)(ii), the monkfish possession limit for Category B and D vessels fishing in the NFMA is changed from 800 lb (363 kg) tail weight per DAS to 470 lb (213 kg) tail weight per DAS to reflect the disapproval of the revised trip limits in Amendment 5 in this final rule.
4. In § 648.96(c), the ABC and ACL setting process has been revised to more clearly reflect the intent of the Councils in Amendment 5 to establish these reference points based upon an automated calculation method, approved by the SSC, that utilizes the best available science.
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 5 is necessary for the conservation and management of the monkfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
The Councils prepared an EA for Amendment 5. In addition, NMFS prepared an Addendum to Amendment 5 to analyze the potential impacts of the amendment on Atlantic sturgeon. Based on the analysis contained in the EA and the Addendum, the Assistant Administrator (AA) concluded that, based on the monitoring and action plan to mitigate impacts on Atlantic sturgeon, there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA, as prepared by the Councils, is available from the Councils and a copy of the Addendum is available from Northeast Regional Office of NMFS (see
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), NMFS finds good cause to waive the delay in effectiveness requirement because such a delay is contrary to the public interest and unnecessary.
The purpose of this rule is to improve the overall management of the monkfish fishery by establishing measures in the form of ACLs and AMs aimed at preventing overfishing. Additionally, this rule establishes measures intended to promote efficiency and reduce waste in the monkfish fishery. Specifically, this rule authorizes the landing of monkfish heads separately from the body, which was previously prohibited; and allows a limited access monkfish vessel to land one additional day's worth of monkfish than would otherwise be authorized based on its DAS usage, and adjust the DAS charged to the vessel to account for the trip limit overage. Delaying this rule's effectiveness may result in economic harm to vessels that must currently land their monkfish in whole form, and process the fish into heads and tails for separate markets upon landing, or discard the monkfish heads at sea, both of which are practices that increase waste and reduce the economic yield from the monkfish resources. Further, delaying the effectiveness of this rule may result in social and economic harm by continuing to require vessels to spend enough time at sea to fully account for their monkfish catch on board. Under this current practice, vessel safety is compromised by staying at sea in potentially unsafe weather conditions solely to ensure that their monkfish DAS charge corresponds to the monkfish catch on board. Thus, delaying the effective date of this final rule would undermine its intent and result in undue harm to vessels by delaying the implementation of measures intended to promote safety and efficiency, and reduce waste in the monkfish fishery. Moreover, even if this rule is effective immediately, the regulated entities need not come into immediate compliance. They can continue their current practices and remain in compliance with the new regulations. Because the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this rule is contrary to the public interest, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in support of Amendment 5. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, relevant analyses contained in the Framework and its EA and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action in this rule. A copy of the analyses done in the Framework and EA is available from the Councils (see
Four comments were received on the proposed rule and the amendment. However, none of these comments were specific to the IRFA or of Amendment 5 more generally.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers commercial fishing entities (NAICS code 114111) to be small entities if they have no more than $4 million in annual sales, while the size standard for charter/party operators (part of NAICS cod 487210) is $7 million in sales. Based on 2005-2007 average conditions, median gross sales by commercial fishing vessels were just over $200,000, and no single fishing entity earned more than $2 million. For regulated charter/party operators, the median value of gross receipts from passengers was just over $9,000, and did not exceed $500,000 in any year during 2001 to 2007. The vessels in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery are considered small business entities because all of them grossed less than $3 million according to the dealer's data for FYs 1994 to 2009, consistent with analyses under the RFA for recent scallop actions. Although multiple vessels may be owned by a single owner, available tracking of ownership is not readily available to reliably ascertain affiliated entities. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, each permitted vessel is treated as a single small entity and is determined to be a small entity under the RFA. Accordingly, there are no differential impacts between large and small entities under this final rule.
The management measures in Amendment 5 have the potential to affect all federally permitted monkfish vessels that are actively participating in the fishery. As of September 2009, there were 758 limited access monkfish permit holders and 2,156 open access permit holders. Of these, 573 limited access permit holders (76 percent) actively participated in the monkfish fishery during FY 2008, while only 504 open access permit holders (23 percent) actively participated in the fishery during this time period. Thus, this action is expected to impact at least 1,077 currently active monkfish permit holders.
The only Amendment 5 measure that requires either new or revised reporting and recordkeeping requirements is the provision enabling vessels to land up to the equivalent of one additional daily monkfish trip limit than would otherwise be authorized based on the vessel's monkfish DAS usage for that trip, provided the vessel notifies NMFS of the overage via vessel VMS prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line, or via phone using the Agency's IVR call-in system at least 1-hr prior to landing. Although this action introduces a new reporting requirement under OMB Control Number 0648-0202, this new requirement will not affect the overall reporting burden associated with the existing VMS and IVR call-in notification requirements authorized under this OMB Control number. As such, formal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance through OMB is not required. There are no other compliance requirements associated with this final rule implementing Amendment 5.
This final rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
All of the approved management measures in Amendment 5 being implemented through this final rule either provide for increased fishing opportunities, increase flexibility and promote efficiency within the fishery, or reduce waste associated with regulatory discards. In terms of increased fishing opportunities, this action increases the annual DAS allocation to vessels operating in the SFMA from 23 DAS to 28 DAS. With regard to increased flexibility and efficiency, this action implements a measure that will allow limited access monkfish vessels to land one additional monkfish trip limit beyond what their DAS usage for that trip would normally allow, and have their DAS adjusted to account for the additional trip limit. Not only does this measure increase flexibility and efficiency by allowing vessels to return to port sooner than they would otherwise be authorized, reducing operating costs and time at sea, it helps to reduce regulatory discards by enabling vessels to land up to another day's worth of monkfish to account for any additional fish caught in their nets. Finally, this action will authorize vessels to land monkfish heads separately from the body, which was previously prohibited under the FMP. Previously, vessels that intended to sell their monkfish heads to a separate market than the tails were required to land their monkfish whole, and separate the heads from the body after landing. This action amends the Monkfish FMP to allow the landing of monkfish heads separately from the body, and implements an appropriate conversion factor to ensure compliance with the landing limits. Therefore, by implementing management measures that increase fishing opportunities, increase flexibility and efficiency, and reduce waste, NMFS has taken the steps necessary to minimize the impacts of this action on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. Further, by disapproving the specification of the NMA ACT and associated DAS and trip limits, NMFS is preventing overfishing since the NFMA ACT recommended by the Councils is 42 percent higher than the recalculated ABC that is based upon the most recent scientific advice. Thus, although disapproving the NFMA leaves more restrictive management measures in effect than those proposed in Amendment 5, it prevents long-term economic losses resulting from the need to implement even more restrictive management measures in the future if overfishing were to occur as a result of implementing the Council's proposed action, which is inconsistent with the best scientific information available.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of permits for the monkfish fishery. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request, and posted on the Northeast Regional
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the PRA and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0202. Public reporting burden for monkfish trip limit overage notification requirement is estimated to average 30 seconds per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. These 30 seconds are included within the total 2-minute estimated response time for the DAS call-in notification requirement, but will be additional for vessels using the VMS procedure. Furthermore, this action is expected to reduce the total number of monkfish trips for vessels that take advantage of this new measure since they will be using their monkfish DAS at a higher rate in exchange for being able to land more monkfish on a given trip. As such, although this action adds a new reporting requirement, it will not change the overall reporting burden associated with the existing VMS and call-in notification requirements authorized under OMB Control Number 0648-0202. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
An informal consultation under the ESA was concluded for the measures proposed in Amendment 5 on March 4, 2011. The measures in Amendment 5 are not expected to modify the fishery in a manner that would cause impacts to species listed under the ESA that were not otherwise considered in the last biological opinion conducted for this fishery on October 29, 2010. As a result of the informal consultation, NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted under this rule do not meet the need to reinitiate formal consultation. The measures in Amendment 5 fall within the scope of consultations on previous Monkfish FMP actions. None of these measures are expected to result in the addition of adverse impacts to current ESA-listed cetaceans, sea turtles, and fish species which would change the basis for the conclusion of the 2010 Biological Opinion for the Monkfish FMP. Additionally, a supplemental analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of Amendment 5 on Atlantic sturgeon, as presented in the Addendum to Amendment 5. Based upon bycatch estimates for 2006-2010, between 8 and 32 percent of the total annual observations of Atlantic sturgeon in the monkfish fishery occurred during the May to October timeframe. Given that interactions will most likely occur, NMFS will work to determine the magnitude of the effects to the species and whether any measures to mitigate impacts are needed, utilizing the conferencing procedures of the ESA.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(9) * * *
(ii)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(A) Vessels that change their DAS declaration from a NE multispecies Category A DAS to a monkfish DAS during the course of a trip remain subject to the NE multispecies DAS usage requirements (i.e., use a NE multispecies Category A DAS in conjunction with the monkfish DAS) described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
(B) Gillnet vessels that change their DAS declaration in accordance with this paragraph (b)(1)(iii) are not subject to the gillnet minimum mesh size restrictions found at § 648.91(c)(1)(iii), but are subject to the smaller NE multispecies minimum mesh requirements for gillnet vessels found under § 648.80 based upon the NE Multispecies Regulated Mesh Area in which the vessel is fishing.
(10)
(a)
(b) * * *
(1)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A)
(4)
(c) * * *
(1)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(ii) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE RMA east of the MA Exemption Area boundary with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.80(b)(2)(i), while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 146 lb (66 kg) whole weight of monkfish per day or partial day, up to a maximum of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 437 lb (198 kg) whole weight per trip. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 2.91. For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE RMA under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization, as authorized under § 648.322(c), while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 146 lb (66 kg) whole weight of monkfish per day or partial day, up to a maximum of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 437 lb (198 kg) whole weight per trip. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 2.91. For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE or MA RMAs west of the MA Exemption Area boundary with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.104(a)(1) while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, up to a maximum of 450 lb (204 kg) tail weight or 1,310 lb (594 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip, unless that vessel is fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization in the SNE RMA. Such a vessel is subject to the incidental catch limit specified under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 2.91. For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(ii)
(d) * * *
(2) If a vessel possesses or lands both monkfish tails and whole monkfish, the vessel may land monkfish livers up to 10 percent of the whole weight of monkfish per trip using the following weight ratio: (0.10) × [(tail weight × 2.91) + (whole fish × 1)].
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(ii) The range of options developed by the Councils may include any of the management measures in the Monkfish FMP, including, but not limited to: ACTs; closed seasons or closed areas; minimum size limits; mesh size limits; net limits; liver-to-monkfish landings ratios; annual monkfish DAS allocations and monitoring; trip or possession limits; blocks of time out of the fishery; gear restrictions; transferability of permits and permit rights or administration of vessel upgrades, vessel replacement, or permit assignment; measures to minimize the impact of the monkfish fishery on protected species; gear requirements or restrictions that minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality; transferable DAS programs; changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports) and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs; changes to the Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program; and other frameworkable measures included in §§ 648.55 and 648.90.
(iii) The Councils shall review the options analyzed by the PDT and other relevant information, consider public comment, and submit a recommendation to the Regional Administrator that meets the Monkfish FMP's objectives, consistent with other applicable law. The Councils' recommendation to the Regional Administrator shall include supporting documents, as appropriate, concerning the environmental and economic impacts of the proposed action and the other options considered by the Councils. Management adjustments made to the Monkfish FMP require majority approval of each Council for submission to the Secretary.
(A) The Councils may delegate authority to the Joint Monkfish Oversight Committee to conduct an initial review of the options analyzed by the PDT and any other relevant information, consider public comment, and make a recommendation to the Councils.
(B) If the Councils submit a recommendation that is consistent with other applicable law but does not meet the Monkfish FMP's goals and objectives, the Regional Administrator may adopt any option developed by the Councils and analyzed by the PDT that has not been rejected by either Council, provided such option meets the Monkfish FMP's goals and objectives, and is consistent with other applicable law. If either the NEFMC or MAFMC has rejected all options, then the
(iv) If the Councils submit, on or before December 1, a recommendation to the Regional Administrator after one meeting with each Council, and the Regional Administrator concurs with the recommendation, the recommendation shall be published in the
(v) Following publication of a proposed rule and after receiving public comment, if the Regional Administrator concurs in the Councils' recommendation, a final rule, if possible, shall be published in the
(b)
(1)
(ii) Recommended adjustments to management measures must come from the categories specified under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, including specification of ABC and ACLs, if necessary.
(2)
(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a proposed rule, and whether regulations have to be in place for an entire harvest/fishing season;
(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the development of the Councils' recommended management measures;
(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource or to impose management measures to resolve gear conflicts; and
(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management measures adopted following their implementation as a final rule.
(3)
(4)
(ii) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the Councils' recommendation and determines that the recommended management measures should be published first as a proposed rule, then the measures shall be published as a proposed rule in the
(iii) If the Regional Administrator does not concur, then the Councils shall be notified in writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(d)
(2)
(ii)
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement the annual harvest guideline (HG) and seasonal allocations for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. These specifications have been determined according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The 2011 maximum HG for Pacific sardine is 50,526 metric tons (mt), of which 4,200 mt is initially set aside for potential use under Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs). The remaining 46,326 mt, constituting the initial commercial fishing HG, has been divided across the seasonal allocation periods in the following way: January 1-June 30—15,214 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt; July 1-September 14—17,530 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt; September 15-December 31—8,582 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt, plus an additional 2,000 mt set aside to buffer against reaching the total HG. This rule is intended to conserve and manage Pacific sardine off the West Coast.
Effective June 24, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2011” may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see
Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.
The CPS FMP, which was implemented by publication of a final rule in the
During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Sub panel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with HG recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its HG recommendation to NMFS.
This rule implements the 2011 HG for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast, that is between 3 and 200 nautical miles seaward of the low water line along the coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework in the FMP. This framework includes a harvest
1.
2.
3.
4.
At the November 2010 Council meeting, the Council adopted the 2010 Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2010 for U.S. management in 2011, and a Pacific sardine biomass estimate of 537,173 mt. When this biomass estimate is applied to the harvest control rule for Pacific sardine in the CPS FMP, the resulting maximum HG is 50,526 mt. For the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing year, the Council recommended, and NMFS has approved, a maximum HG of 50,526 mt. Similar to the action taken in 2009 and 2010, the Council also recommended, and NMFS approved, that 4,200 mt of the available 2011 HG be initially reserved for fishing/research activities that would be undertaken under potential EFPs.
NMFS will likely make a decision on whether to issue EFPs for Pacific sardine some time prior to the start of the second seasonal period (July 1, 2011). Any of the 4,200 mt that is not issued or designated to be issued to EFPs will be rolled into the third allocation period's directed fishery. Any set-aside attributed to EFPs designed to be conducted during the closed fishing time in the second allocation period (prior to September 15), but not utilized, will roll into the third allocation period's directed fishery. Any set-aside attributed to EFPs designed to be conducted during closed fishing times in the third allocation, but not utilized, will not be re-allocated.
The Council also recommended, and NMFS approved, that the remaining 46,326 mt (HG of 50,526 mt minus proposed 4,200 mt EFP set-aside) be used as the initial overall commercial fishing HG for Pacific sardine, and that this amount be allocated across the seasonal periods established by Amendment 11 (71 FR 36999, June 29, 2006). The Council recommended incidental catch set-asides of 1,000 mt per allocation period, and an additional management uncertainty buffer of 2,000 mt in the third period. The purpose of the incidental set-aside allotments and allowance of an incidental catch-only fishery is to allow for the restricted incidental landings of Pacific sardine in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, when a seasonal directed fishery is closed. The additional management buffer in the third period is due to the predictive difficulties associated with closing the fishery, and to help ensure that the fishery does not exceed the maximum HG.
Therefore, for the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing season, the maximum HG is 50,526 mt, and the directed harvest levels and incidental set-asides are initially allocated across the three seasonal allocation periods in the following way: from January 1-June 30, 15,214 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt; from July 1-September 14, 17,530 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt; and from September 15-December 31, 8,582 mt is allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable adjusted directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, fishing will be closed for the remainder of the allocation period to directed harvest and only incidental harvest is allowed. For the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings are counted against that period's incidental set-aside and the catch of Pacific sardine is constrained to a 30 percent by weight incidental catch rate when Pacific sardine are landed with other CPS so as to minimize the targeting of Pacific sardine. In the event that an incidental set-aside is projected to be attained, the incidental fishery will be closed for the remainder of the period. If the set-aside is not fully attained or is exceeded in a given seasonal period, the directed harvest allocation in the following seasonal period will be automatically adjusted (upward or downward) to account for the discrepancy. Additionally, if during any seasonal period the directed harvest allocation is not fully attained or is exceeded, then the following period's directed harvest total will be adjusted accordingly to account for this discrepancy as well.
If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached or are expected to be reached, the Pacific sardine fishery will be closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. The NMFS Southwest Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the
Although it is not being implemented through this action, for the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing season the Council also recommended an overfishing limit (OFL) of 92,767 mt and an Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) of 84,681 mt. The HG for the 2011 fishing season is operationally similar to an Annual Catch Target (ACT) (as defined at § 600.310(f)(2)). These reference points are in accordance with the proposed Amendment 13 to the CPS FMP, on which the Council took final action on in June 2010, and that will undergo review by NMFS. The intent of Amendment 13 is to revise relevant sections of the CPS FMP to ensure consistency with the revised National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines.
On January 27, 2011 NMFS published a proposed rule for this action soliciting public comments (76 FR 4854). NMFS received two comments regarding the Pacific sardine annual specifications.
NMFS recognizes that the 2011 Pacific sardine assessment indicates a continued decline in sardine biomass. This decline has also led NMFS and the Council to recommend the lowest harvest level since the onset of Federal sardine management in 2000, a direct result of the precautionary nature of the harvest control rule. The conservative and precautionary nature of the harvest control rule can be seen when comparing the biomass estimates and HGs from 2010 and 2011. In 2010 the biomass estimate was 702,204 mt and the resulting HG was 72,039 mt, only 10 percent of the biomass. Because of the precautionary nature of the harvest control rule, the approximately 23 percent decline in biomass in 2011 to 537,173 mt, resulted in a 30 percent decrease in the HG. The 2011 HG is 50,526 mt, or only 9 percent of the biomass. This reduction in allowable harvest from 2010 to 2011 is a direct result of the precautionary nature of the harvest control rule that reduces allowable harvest levels as biomass declines.
The commenter also requested that Pacific sardine be considered overfished. According to standards of the FMP, Pacific sardine is overfished when its biomass declines below 50,000 mt. The 2011 biomass estimate for Pacific sardine is 537,173 mt, therefore Pacific sardine is not overfished. Additionally, the harvest guideline control rule explicitly protects the stock from approaching an overfished condition through the use of a cutoff parameter that is three times that of the overfished level, or 150,000 mt. Due to this cutoff parameter, the harvest guideline will equal zero, and therefore fishing will not be allowed, when biomass declines to 150,000 mt, well above the overfished level of 50,000 mt. Of all CPS, sardine productivity is most strongly affected by environmental variation. Favorable and unfavorable periods for sardine tend to occur in cycles, meaning that periods of low abundance for sardine are probably inevitable, even in the absence of fishery. For this reason, B
Additionally, the commenter requested that NMFS determine overfishing of Pacific sardine is occurring. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or annual total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis. The 2010 Pacific sardine HG was 72,039 mt, of which approximately 67,000 mt of sardine were landed, therefore not exceeding the HG. In 2009 the U.S. HG, or optimum yield (OY), of 66,932 mt was exceeded by approximately 150 mt or 0.2 percent. It was determined that overfishing did not occur that year because the CPS FMP recognizes that catch levels resulting from the HG control rule are more conservative than MSY levels and therefore overfishing occurs only when the HG is exceeded by a significant amount. In the context of a highly productive stock such as sardine, exceeding the HG by 0.2 percent was not enough to jeopardize its capacity to produce MSY and therefore overfishing did not occur. To ensure the HG was not exceeded in 2010, new management measures were put in place by the Council and NMFS for the 2010 fishing season that allowed NMFS to close the fishery in a timely manner and the HG was not exceeded.
Finally, with regard to a concern that fishing might exceed a combined U.S., Mexico and Canada overfishing limit, Pacific sardine is not managed under an international agreement, and therefore there is not a total overfishing level. NFMS recognizes, however, that management of transboundary stocks, such as Pacific sardine, is one of the more difficult problems in managing CPS. In the absence of a cooperative management agreement, the current approach in the CPS FMP sets harvest levels for U.S. fisheries by prorating the total target harvest level according to the portion of the stock estimated to by in U.S. waters on average. The primary advantage of prorating the total target harvest level is that U.S. fisheries can be managed unilaterally in a responsible manner that is consistent with the MSA. Mexican and Canadian landings are not considered explicitly when harvest levels for U.S. waters is determined, so U.S. fishermen are not penalized directly for Mexican and Canadian harvests. However, the allowable harvest level in U.S. waters depends on current biomass estimates, so U.S. harvest will be reduced if the stock is depleted by fishing in either Mexico or Canada.
The Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
No issues were raised by public comments in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act for this action or on the economic impacts of the rule generally. Therefore, the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) contains no changes from the IRFA. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The purpose of this action is to implement the 2011 HG for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific
The HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme: 35 percent of the HG is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent of the HG, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is then reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations will be released. If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery is closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the HG and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet.
The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS finfish fleet. Approximately 108 vessels are permitted to operate in the sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 64 permits in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 44 permits in Oregon and Washington's state-permitted Pacific sardine fisheries. The U.S. Small Business Administration defines small businesses engaged in fishing as those vessels with annual revenues of or below $4 million. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2010 for the West Coast CPS finfish fleet was well below $4 million, and all of these vessels therefore are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. Accordingly, there would be no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large business entities under the proposed action.
The profitability of these vessels as a result of this rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable.
For the 2010 fishing year, the maximum HG was set at 72,039 mt. Approximately 66,000 mt of the HG was harvested during the 2010 fishing season, with an estimated total coastwide ex-vessel value of $12.2 million. Using these figures, the 2010 ex-vessel price per mt of Pacific sardines was $185.
The HG for the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011) is 50,526 mt. This HG is approximately 25% less than the directed fishing HG for 2010 of 68,039 mt. This decrease in HG is due to a decrease in the coastwide Pacific sardine biomass from which the HG is directly derived.
If the fleet were to take the entire 2011 HG, and using the 2010 ex-vessel average price of $185 per mt of Pacific sardine, the total potential revenue for the entire fleet would be approximately $9.3 million. This decrease would be slightly less than the average coastwide total ex-vessel value achieved from 2001-2010 of approximately $11.5 million. There will also likely be a drop in profitability based on this rule compared to last season due the lower HG this fishing season. Whether this will occur depends greatly on market forces within the fishery, and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleets and the fleets' ability to find pure schools of Pacific sardine. A change in the market rate and/or the potential lack of availability of the resource to the fleets could cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific sardine that is harvested which, in turn, would reduce the total revenue to the fleet from Pacific sardine.
However, the revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is only one factor determining the overall revenue of a majority of the CPS fleet, and therefore the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action, can not be viewed in isolation. CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including anchovy, mackerel, squid, and tuna, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. A reliance on multiple species is a necessity because each CPS stock is highly associated to present ocean and environmental conditions. Because each species responds to such conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, the CPS fishery as a whole has endured by depending on a group of species.
No significant alternatives to this rule were considered or exist that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, and which would minimize any significant economic impact of this rule on the affected small entities. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the harvest control rule in the FMP. The harvest control rule is applied to the current stock biomass estimate to determine what the HG for that fishing season will be; as biomass increases so will the HG, conversely as biomass decreases so does the HG. The determination of the annual HG merely implements the established procedures of the FMP with the goal of continuing to provide expected net benefits to the nation, regardless of the specific annual allowable harvest levels for the Pacific sardine fishery.
There are no reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements required by this rule. Additionally, no other Federal rules duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a notice to fishermen that also serves as a small entity compliance guide (guide) was prepared and will be distributed to fishermen and processors. The guide is also available on the Internet at
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Public meeting.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is holding a public meeting on June 1, 2011, to provide an opportunity for the NRC and the public to discuss the proposed enhanced weapons rule, the two draft regulatory guides, and the draft weapons safety assessment documents.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).
Public Meeting: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Building, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Robert H. Beall, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-000; Telephone: 301-415-3874; E-mail: Robert.Beall@nrc.gov.
The main purpose of this meeting is to facilitate external stakeholder understanding of the proposed rule and the supporting documents to enable submission of well-informed comments. Representatives from the NRC, FBI, and ATF will discuss and answer questions on the content of the proposed rule and guidance documents during the meeting.
This meeting is not a forum to negotiate the content of the draft proposed rule or guidance documents. No formal comments on the proposed enhanced weapons rule or the draft guidance documents will be collected, and no requests for an extension of the public comment period will be entertained at this meeting. Comments on the proposed rule and/or guidance documents and requests for extensions of the comment periods should be submitted to the NRC according to the instructions in each of the draft rulemaking and/or guidance documents.
The following table indicates the proposed rule and related documents that are available to the public and how they may be obtained.
You can access publicly available information related to these documents using the following methods:
•
•
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available Online in the NRC Library at
•
The NRC provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farm Credit Administration.
Proposed rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we or us) proposes to amend its regulation requiring the board of directors of each Farm Credit System (FCS or System) institution to adopt an operational and strategic business plan (business plan) to include, among other things, an emphasis on diversity and inclusion. The proposed amendment would require each plan to contain a human capital plan that includes strategies and actions to achieve diversity and inclusion within the institution's workforce, management and governance structure, and an assessment of the progress the institution has made in accomplishing these strategies and actions; assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the institution's workforce, management and governance structure; and describes the institution's workforce and management succession programs. In addition, each plan would be required to include a marketing plan to, among other things, further the objective that the FCS be responsive to the credit needs of all eligible and creditworthy agricultural producers and other eligible persons with specific attention to diversity and inclusion.
You may send comments on or before July 25, 2011.
We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by e-mail or through the FCA's Web site. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, we are no longer accepting comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review copies of comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our Web site at
The objectives of this proposed amendment are to:
• Ensure that each System institution understands that promoting diversity and inclusion is critical to the institution's long-term success;
• Internalize diversity and inclusion into the corporate culture of each System institution;
• Ensure that each System institution develops strategies and actions to achieve diversity and inclusion within its workforce, management and governance structure, and assesses progress towards accomplishing these strategies and actions; assesses the strengths and weaknesses of its current workforce, management and governance structure; and considers succession planning; and
• Ensure that each System institution considers how it will further the objective of being responsive to the credit needs of all eligible and creditworthy agricultural producers and other eligible persons with specific attention to diversity and inclusion.
Planning is critical to the success of any organization, including FCS institutions.
We recognize that many institutions are developing human capital and marketing plans, either as part of formulating their business plans or separately, but some institutions may not have a formalized process for developing human capital (including succession) or marketing plans. Formally incorporating the human capital and marketing plan requirements into an institution's business plan recognizes the importance of planning for the future of the institution.
One of the key elements we are proposing—for both the human capital and the marketing plan—is the element of diversity and inclusion. Institutions would have to consider diversity and inclusion within their workforce, management and leadership as well as in their outreach to all eligible and creditworthy persons within their territories.
The United States—including its farming communities and rural areas—is becoming increasingly diverse. The pool of eligible and creditworthy borrowers includes men and women from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. It includes young farmers, as well as older ones. It consists of producers with small, part-time operations, as well as producers with thousands of acres and millions of dollars in gross income. It also consists of producers who operate within local food systems, which typically involve small farmers producing heterogeneous organic or specialty crops, and short supply chains in which farmers also perform marketing functions, including storage, packaging, transportation, distribution and advertising. According to the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, most farms that sell directly to consumers are small farms with less than $50,000 in total farm sales and are
The 2007 Census of Agriculture found that of the 2.2 million farms in the United States, 370,000 had a principal operator—the person who is in charge of day-to-day decisions—that was not a white male. Between 2002 and 2007, farm operators who were women, American Indian, Asian, Black and Hispanic/Latino increased.
If the FCS is to continue as a strong and vibrant supporter of agriculture in America, it must develop specific marketing plans to reach all potential borrowers, including those in market segments that may currently be underserved. In addition, in order to effectively reach and serve these potential borrowers, each institution will have to ensure that its staff and boards of directors reflect the diversity of its chartered territory. Unless System institutions commit to embracing diversity and inclusion in lending, employment and governance, they risk losing market share and relevance in the marketplace.
In addition to this “business case” for diversity and inclusion, section 1.1(b) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), requires the System to be inclusionary in its lending. Section 1.1(b) provides that the System was established as a “permanent system of credit for agriculture which will be responsive to the credit needs of all types of agricultural producers having a basis for credit. * * *” As a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), the System has a statutory obligation to serve all types of eligible and creditworthy persons.
Many System institutions have already taken steps in the area of diversity and inclusion. Some of these steps are explicitly designed to increase diversity and inclusion, while others may have enhanced diversity and inclusion as a consequence. These measures are a good foundation for the planning that this proposed amendment would require.
In 1980, Congress added section 4.19 to the Act. This provision requires each System association to prepare a program for furnishing sound and constructive credit and related services to YBS farmers and ranchers.
Section 4.38 of the Act requires all System institutions with more than 20 employees to “establish and maintain an affirmative action program that applies the affirmative action standards otherwise applied to contractors of the Federal government.” As stated in EM-530:
In general, an acceptable [affirmative action program (AAP)] plan must include an analysis of areas where the institution is deficient in the utilization of minority groups and women. The [AAP] plan also should set goals and timetables to which the institution's good faith efforts must be directed to correct deficiencies in utilizing minorities and women at all levels and in all segments of its work force.
The System established a Diversity Workgroup (Workgroup) in 2006 to increase diversity awareness, promote understanding of inclusiveness, and serve as a diversity resource within the System. The Workgroup recognizes the business case for diversity and inclusion; the Workgroup's belief is that fulfillment of its mission will assist the System in being more responsive to marketplace needs, strengthen its public position and contribute to enhanced workplace engagement. Since its founding, the Workgroup has sponsored a diversity conference, several training workshops, speakers, outreach and communications; furthermore, it is in the process of developing a longer-term work plan. The Workgroup has publicized the successful bottom line business results that institutions that embrace diversity and inclusion have achieved. We encourage all System institutions to support and work closely with the Workgroup to achieve a more inclusive workforce and borrower base.
Some System institutions are already taking significant actions to assure their future success by reaching out to increase the diversity of their employees and customers. They recognize that a cultural and workforce transformation is required to grow their lending. Institutions have taken steps such as the following:
• Adding minority staffing to reflect the demographics of their territories, recognizing that new customers want to do business with lenders that understand their language and culture;
• Producing sales materials and providing financial and business training in various languages spoken in their chartered territories;
• Marketing through ethnic business and community organizations;
• Marketing to Hispanic/Latino communities via Web sites that have information translated into Spanish;
• Conducting diversity and inclusion education and training sessions for their directors, managers and employees;
• Establishing diversity and inclusion councils;
• Recruiting new employees through female and minority organizations;
• Establishing mentoring relationships with new employees, particularly women and minorities from different ethnic groups and backgrounds;
• Creating career tracks to ensure that all employees have the opportunity to ascend into positions of management and leadership;
• Partnering with minority youth development organizations; and
• Closely analyzing the demographics of their marketplace to understand that outreach to minority and other underserved producers can lead to tremendous growth.
With this proposed amendment, we believe that all System institutions should take actions such as those listed above. The United States is becoming more diverse, and any lending institution that fails to include all potential customers in its outreach runs a serious risk, in the long run, of not being a vital source of financing in America.
Diversity should not be viewed as a list of demographic criteria. Rather, diversity is best thought of as the inclusion of
Diversity and inclusion in employment focus on using the talents of people of different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to improve the workforce environment and productivity. These differences have a strong influence on how individuals approach challenges and solve problems, make decisions and identify opportunities.
Diversity and inclusion in lending focus on looking beyond the traditional customer base to ensure that all eligible and creditworthy persons have access to credit and related financial services. Examples of non-traditional customers may include women and minorities who operate traditional farm businesses as well as those who operate within local food systems.
Diverse employees and/or effective outreach and marketing programs could aid the System in reaching new customers. For example, diverse employees may more effectively reach diverse borrowers, thereby widening the pool of potential customers. Moreover, diverse employees bring different perspectives to an organization and may develop more creative and innovative products and services, which can also increase the customer base.
Many different kinds of barriers to achieving diversity and inclusion may exist. Some may not fully appreciate the business opportunity that diversity and inclusion can provide. Others may recognize the opportunity but may not know what steps to take to further diversity and inclusion.
In Section IV. above, we discuss specific steps institutions have taken in furtherance of diversity and inclusion. In Section VII. below, we discuss the requirements of the proposed amendment that we believe will advance diversity and inclusion. In this section, we provide more conceptual suggestions for bringing about the institutional cultural change that is necessary to achieve diversity and inclusion.
Including diversity and inclusion in an institution's mission statement is a key element in informing stakeholders about the institution's business philosophy and how it will operate.
As stated by a leading diversity Web site, although corporate mission statements may seem simple on the surface, they are an important clue as to how a company operates and what its core values are. “Given the increasing diversity of the American [workforce] and the multicultural consumer base, companies that express a commitment to [workforce], marketplace and supplier diversity and inclusion will attract the most talented employees and gain loyal investors and customers.”
A company should use its mission statement to develop trust among its varied constituencies of employees, customers, shareholders and other stakeholders—suppliers, members of the community and anyone else who has an interest in or is affected by the company's operations and policies. References in a mission statement to “inclusive,” “diverse,” “nondiscrimination,” “integrity” and “trust” may communicate that the company is committed to respecting people and adhering to its own values.
Diversity and inclusion in the mission statement are essential to communicating an institution's commitment to these principles; however, it will not, on its own, be sufficient in creating a diverse and inclusive environment in the institution's culture. The suggestions that follow provide ideas for how institutions can instill diversity and inclusion into their culture.
Increasing diversity—recruiting from underrepresented groups—is only part of what is necessary to create an organization in which all individuals have a sense of value. An employer's efforts must also be focused on inclusiveness, which involves intentional, ongoing engagement of diversity and inclusion within organizations, removal of hidden barriers and recognition of unconscious bias. Inclusiveness is not just about numbers; it is also about creating an inclusive organizational culture.
Members of majority groups may feel excluded from diversity and inclusion initiatives because they feel like those initiatives have nothing to do with them. Or they may even feel threatened by a change in the status quo. If this is the case, diversity and inclusion will not occur.
Members of the majority group, particularly those in influential or leadership positions, must be part of making the workforce reflect the demographics of their market segment (or segmentation). If the majority group decides that change must happen, it will happen quickly. Moreover, this group's hands-on involvement will send a powerful message to the rest of the organization about the importance of diversity and inclusion.
The boards of directors, chief executive officers, and senior management have the authority to create a corporate culture that is reflective of the demography of the constituents working and doing business in the institution's territory. Establishing diversity and inclusion at the highest level of the organization is only the beginning of a successful program. By continuously reinforcing diversity and inclusion initiatives and holding management accountable, the institution can create an environment of inclusion and acceptance.
The proposed amendments to our regulations would require each institution to adopt a human capital plan—a plan that would strategically address diversity and inclusion as well as other specified matters—as part of its business plan. The regulation would
Before we discuss the specific requirements of the proposed amendments, we want to reiterate our views of diversity and inclusion. Diversity is best thought of as the inclusion of
Proposed § 618.8440(b)(7) would require institutions to include a human capital plan in their operational and strategic business plan.
Proposed § 618.8440(b)(7)(i) would require the human capital plan to include strategies and actions to achieve diversity and inclusion within the institution's workforce, management and governance structure and an assessment of the progress the institution has made towards accomplishing these strategies and actions.
Proposed § 618.8440(b)(7)(ii) would require the human capital plan to describe the institution's current workforce, management and governance structure and to assess their strengths and weaknesses. We believe such an assessment is a prudent human resources management practice that every employer should engage in to ensure long-term success. We expect that institutions are already undertaking such assessments.
Proposed § 618.8440(b)(7)(iii) would require the human capital plan to describe the institution's workforce and management succession programs. We believe that prudent succession planning is necessary to ensure the long-term success of an institution.
These requirements would complement the guidance that has long been provided in FCA's EM-530, which states that a sound human resources management plan must address the areas in which an institution will grow, decline or change as a result of alterations to the institution's mission and function and how such alterations will affect staffing needs. Management succession plans should address levels ranging from middle management to the chief executive officer. The succession plan should be in writing and should include strategies for preparing candidates for succession.
This proposed regulation would not specify the content of succession plans, but it would require that the succession planning be described in writing as part of an institution's human capital plan. We would continue to use our examination function to ensure that the succession plan is adequate.
We discussed above many of the strategies an institution could employ to achieve diversity and inclusion in its workforce, including its management. There are many resources that institutions can use to learn more about how to advance diversity and inclusion in their workplaces. We encourage all institutions to take advantage of these resources.
We also want to draw attention to FCA Bookletter BL-009,
Proposed § 618.8440(b)(8) would require each institution to include a marketing plan in its operational and strategic business plan. The marketing plan would have to include specific steps the institution will take to further the objective of the Act, set forth in section 1.1(b), that the System be responsive to the credit needs of
• A description of the institution's chartered territory by geographic region, types of agriculture practiced, and market segment; and
• Strategies and actions to provide the institution's products and services to all creditworthy and eligible persons with specific attention towards diversity and inclusion within each market segment, and an assessment of the progress the institution is making towards accomplishing these strategies and actions.
In order to be able to describe its chartered territory, and to understand whom it should be striving to reach, an institution must know the characteristics and market segmentation of its territory. Market segmentation is the identification of portions of the market that are different from one another and can include, but is not limited to, geographic or demographic segmentation or types of agriculture practiced. Market segmentation allows a business to better satisfy the needs of its potential customers.
A vast amount of demographic information, down to the county level, is available on the Web sites of the Census of Agriculture,
Once an institution knows its marketplace, it must then formulate strategies and actions to provide the institution's products and services to all creditworthy and eligible persons. As discussed above, one strategy should be to ensure the institution's workforce and boards of directors generally reflect the demographics and other characteristics of its territory. Institutions should be especially mindful of employee characteristics—such as not speaking languages other than English—that can pose high barriers to doing business with potential borrowers.
Marketing plans should include grassroots outreach activities and education efforts that market to underserved populations regarding business and financial planning and leadership and loan programs for persons who are creditworthy and eligible to borrow.
System institutions should also continue to demonstrate their commitment to diversity and inclusion through ongoing training and workshops that reinforce leadership's and management's commitment to new markets. These activities can be viewed as opportunities for leadership and management to educate the workforce on the negative consequences of unconscious bias that may stifle or reverse diversity and inclusion initiatives.
The marketing plan must also assess the progress the institution has made in accomplishing its strategies and actions to serve all creditworthy and eligible persons within each market segment.
It may be difficult for institutions to measure the success of their outreach in some respects, because the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) currently precludes creditors from asking most applicants for information such as race, ethnicity or gender (even if that information is collected by an independent third party after the loan decision has been made).
Moreover, a significant amount of information about borrowers is available even today. Institutions should certainly know if they are serving borrowers in languages other than English—if they have the capability to serve those borrowers. They should have demographic information about borrowers receiving Farm Service Agency-guaranteed socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher loans, which are available to members of groups whose members have been subject to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their group membership, including American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians, Blacks or African Americans, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, Hispanics/Latinos and women. And they should know if they are serving non-traditional customers who operate within local food systems producing organic or specialty crops. Reaching members of all of these groups will enhance an institution's marketplace diversity.
The FCA Board acknowledges that the System, under the guidance of the Diversity Workgroup, is engaging in many initiatives to address diversity and inclusion within its workforce and reach out to the diverse base of persons eligible to borrow from the System. Diversity and inclusion is a never-ending process that needs the support and direction of each institution's leaders and management. With that support and direction, diversity and inclusion can become a normal business practice that is intrinsically rewarding for all individuals doing and seeking business with the institution. Institution leaders and managers must be creators and innovators to make diversity and inclusion a part of the routine dialogue with the workforce and customers. Ultimately, each institution must review its past practices, assess its current practices, and make the right adjustments going forward to ensure that it remains relevant and fulfills its GSE mission in the current and future financial markets.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Archives and records, Banks, banking, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Technical assistance.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 618 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 618 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1.5, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 4.12, 4.13A, 4.25, 4.29, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2019, 2020, 2073, 2075, 2076, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2183, 2200, 2211, 2218, 2243, 2244, and 2252).
2. Amend § 618.8440(b) by adding new paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8) as follows:
(b) * * *
(7) A human capital plan that includes, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Strategies and actions to achieve diversity and inclusion within the institution's workforce, management and governance structure and an assessment of the progress the institution has made in accomplishing these strategies and actions;
(ii) A description of the institution's current workforce, management and governance structure and an assessment of their strengths and weaknesses; and
(iii) A description of the institution's workforce and management succession programs.
(8) A marketing plan that strategically addresses how the institution will further the objective of the Act, set forth in section 1.1(b) of the Act, that the System be responsive to the credit needs of
(i) A description of the institution's chartered territory by geographic region, types of agriculture practiced and market segment; and
(ii) Strategies and actions to provide the institution's products and services to all creditworthy and eligible persons with specific attention towards diversity and inclusion within each market segment, and an assessment of the progress the institution has made in accomplishing these strategies and actions.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
NCUA proposes to change its rule governing the process by which the agency solicits, receives, evaluates, and acts on credit union applications seeking loans and technical assistance grants from the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF or Fund). The proposed changes update the current rule to improve transparency and are intended to improve its organization, structure, and ease of use by credit unions. The revisions do not reflect a change to the fundamental mission of the CDRLF, but instead remove unnecessary detail and outdated processes in the current rule while adding clarification and flexibility. The proposal also clarifies the application process and adds requirements addressing reporting and monitoring.
Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2011.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pamela Williams, Credit Union Program Analyst, Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives, or Justin Anderson, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6643 (Ms. Williams) or (703) 518-6540 (Mr. Anderson).
The CDRLF was created by Congress in 1979 with an initial appropriation of $6 million and has been administered exclusively by NCUA since 1986. Through subsequent appropriations and earnings on Fund assets, the Fund has grown to over $19.7 million as of the end of the first quarter of 2011. The Fund serves as a source of financial support, in the form of both loans and technical assistance grants, for credit unions serving predominantly low-income members. It also serves as a source of funding to help low-income credit unions respond to emergencies arising in their communities. The NCUA Board (the Board) has delegated to the Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives authority to make the determination of how to allocate the finite resources of the Fund among qualifying credit unions. Awards provided through the CDRLF Program have strengthened credit unions by enabling them to increase their capacity to support the communities in which they operate. This increased capacity has allowed credit unions to provide basic financial services to low-income residents of these communities, resulting in more opportunities for residents of the credit unions' communities to improve their financial circumstances.
The technical assistance grant portion of the CDRLF provides funds to low-income credit unions so that they may extend services to their members and improve their operations. The source of awards includes appropriated funds, current year earnings, and a portion of prior years' retained earnings.
Through the loan portion of the CDRLF, low-income credit unions may receive funds to support a variety of financial and related services designed to meet the particular needs of members and the low-income communities served. In years where Congress has not appropriated funds for loans, funding has come from scheduled loan repayments of prior loans.
Part 705 has been largely unchanged, in substantive terms, since 1993. In the years following, significant enhancements, including changes in technology, have altered the way in which NCUA retrieves and uses data from credit unions. The proposed changes in this rule, which comprehensively revise part 705, reflect these changes and are designed to reduce the burden on credit unions. The proposed changes remove some of the detail in the current rule dealing with administrative aspects of the program to provide the agency with greater flexibility to make changes and variations to suit specific circumstances. Other changes add detail to the rule, for example, regarding how NCUA evaluates applications, to provide greater transparency and better knowledge and information to prospective applicants. The changes also add a new section addressing reporting to and monitoring by NCUA, which is designed to help the agency assure that an award from the Fund is used in the manner and for the purposes represented by the credit unions receiving loans or grants. On balance, the rule is streamlined and the burden imposed on credit unions seeking an award from the Fund is reduced.
In November 2008, the Board amended its low-income rule to change the criteria by which credit unions serving primarily low-income members are designated. 73 FR 71909 (November 26, 2008). NCUA further clarified this change in August 2010. 75 FR 47171 (August 5, 2010). As more fully discussed in the preambles to those rulemakings, NCUA changed the standard for measuring member income from median household income to median family income. 12 CFR 701.34. By cross reference, which is retained in this proposal, Part 705 uses the low-income standard promulgated in the 2008 rule making and clarified in 2010.
Also in this proposal, the Board has eliminated the range of interest rates that may be charged on a loan from the Fund, which is currently set in the rule at 1% to 3%. Instead, the Board proposes to reference the CDRLF's Interest Rate Policy, which has been in effect since January 2008 and is located on NCUA's Web site. NCUA will include the specific interest rate for a funding in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. This again will ensure maximum flexibility for NCUA to set interest rates that are appropriate for the particular economic climate at the time of a funding and the needs of credit unions.
This portion of the proposal also incorporates language from current §§ 705.7(b),(c), and (e) addressing repayment, maturity, matching, and acceleration. These sections are unchanged from the current rule except that the matching requirement in the current section is now at NCUA's option rather than expressly required. The current rule states that “generally,” monies obtained from the Fund “must be matched” by the participating credit union. This proposal makes the matching requirement expressly optional at NCUA's discretion based on the financial condition of the credit union. This proposed change will enable the agency to more readily employ its judgment and experience in determining whether matching will be beneficial and necessary in any given case. This proposal does, however, retain §§ 705.7(b)(1), (2), and (3) from the current rule that address the requirements for a credit union that must provide matching funds. These requirements have been largely unchanged, but do provide more flexibility for NCUA to determine how
This section concludes with a general statement that other terms and conditions of loans from the Fund will be included in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and applicable loan documents. 12 CFR 705.5(h) (proposed rule). The Board believes it is prudent to preserve its flexibility by addressing other specific details concerning the loan in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and loan documents, which can be more readily adapted to change and adjusted as circumstances and experience warrant.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact any proposed regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities. NCUA considers credit unions having less than ten million dollars in assets to be small for purposes of RFA. Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 87-2 as amended by IRPS 03-2. The proposed revisions to part 705 are designed to update and streamline the rule, thereby reducing the burden for credit unions that are seeking financial awards, whether in the form of a technical assistance grant or a loan, from NCUA. Moreover, the rule implements a program that is entirely voluntary on the part of credit unions. It has no impact on credit unions that elect not to pursue this funding opportunity. NCUA has determined and certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA has determined that an RFA analysis is not required.
There are aspects of the CDRLF Program that involve information collection within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
Previously, NCUA sought and obtained Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for its use of certain documents, including the application and the report forms used to monitor and follow up on the uses credit unions have made of funds provided under the technical assistance grant and loan programs. These documents have been assigned OMB Control No. 3133-0137, which remained valid through December 2010.
The proposed rule eliminates much of the detail from current §§ 705.5 and 705.7 and provides that terms and conditions pertaining to loans from the Fund will be governed in separate loan documents. These documents, which will be required to obtain loan funds from the CDRLF, constitute information collections within the meaning of the PRA. Accordingly, NCUA intends to secure OMB approval, through an application for reinstatement of OMB Control No. 3133-0137, to include a promissory note and a loan agreement under that number. As required by the PRA, NCUA is submitting a copy of this proposed regulation as part of its request for OMB approval of reinstatement of this previously approved information collection. Since the prior number has expired, NCUA believes it is prudent and appropriate to seek approval for reinstatement of the previously approved control number.
The proposed rule contemplates that credit unions that are approved for loans from the Fund will be required to execute a promissory note and a loan agreement. NCUA estimates approximately fifteen credit unions will be approved for loans per year. NCUA also estimates it will take a credit union approximately two hours to review, evaluate and execute the loan documents, noting in particular that the credit union must attach, as an exhibit to the loan agreement, a duly executed board resolution confirming the decision to borrow the funds has been approved by the board and that the individual executing the note on behalf
The loan agreement also calls for a report describing the use of loan proceeds, the impact of any new programs supported or funded by loan proceeds, and any obstacles encountered affecting the credit union's ability to accomplish the objectives identified in its loan application. This report must be provided to NCUA annually. NCUA estimates the burden associated with this reporting to be another two hours per year. On average, there are about 50 loans outstanding at any given time for which reporting may be necessary.
The loan agreement also contemplates that other information about a credit union's business, operations and financial condition may be requested by NCUA from time to time, if necessary to permit the Fund to maintain or perfect its security interest in collateral or to otherwise fully effectuate the purposes of the loan agreement. NCUA estimates it will request this additional information only with respect to ten percent of outstanding loans and that the burden associated with compliance with this request will be four hours.
This yields an estimated annual burden of 150 hours for this information collection, as broken out and itemized below:
Total hours: 30 + 100 + 20 = 150
Organizations and individuals that wish to submit comments on this information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
The NCUA considers comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in:
• Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of the NCUA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of 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;
The Paperwork Reduction Act requires OMB to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in the proposed regulation between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. The financial award programs administered through the CDRLF are available to FCUs as well as to state chartered credit unions. By law, state chartered institutions with Federal share insurance are already subject to numerous provisions of NCUA's rules, based on the agency's role as the insurer of member share accounts and the significant interest NCUA has in the safety and soundness of their operations. In any event, the proposed rule 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. NCUA has determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
NCUA's goal is to promulgate clear and understandable regulations that impose minimal regulatory burden. We request comments on whether the proposed rule is understandable and minimally intrusive if implemented as proposed.
Credit unions, Loans, Grants, Revolving fund, Community programs, Low income.
Accordingly, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 705 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 705 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), and (7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785 and 1786.
2. Revise part 705 as follows:
(a) Part 705 is issued by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) under § 130 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1772c-1, which implements the Community Development Credit Union Revolving Loan Fund Transfer Act (Pub. L. 99-609, 100 Stat. 3475 (November 6, 1986)).
(b) This Part describes how NCUA makes money available to credit unions from its Community Development
(c) The Fund is intended to support the efforts of credit unions through loans and technical assistance grants needed for:
(1) Providing basic financial and related services to residents in their communities;
(2) Enhancing their capacity to better serve their members and the communities in which they operate; and
(3) Responding to emergencies.
(d) The policy of NCUA is to revolve funds to credit unions as often as practical in order to gain maximum economic impact on as many credit unions as possible. NCUA anticipates the financial awards provided to credit unions through the Fund will better enable them to support the communities in which they operate; providing basic financial services to low-income residents of these communities, resulting in more opportunities for the residents to improve their financial circumstances.
(e) This Part generally establishes the following:
(1) Definitions;
(2) The application process and requirements for qualifying for a loan from the Fund;
(3) The evaluation process;
(4) How loan funds are to be made available and their repayment; and
(5) Technical assistance grants to be provided to credit unions.
(a) For purposes of this Part, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in this section.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(a) To be eligible to receive an award, in the form of either a loan or a technical assistance grant from the Fund, a Qualifying Credit Union must, within the time frames specified in any Notice of Funding Opportunity, also:
(1) Complete and submit an application; and
(2) Meet the underwriting standards established by NCUA, including any pertaining to financial viability, as set forth in the application and any related materials developed by NCUA.
(a) NCUA may make loans from the Fund to Participating Credit Unions for various uses. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of permissible uses or projects:
(1) Development of new products or services for members, including new or expanded electronic banking facilities, share draft programs, credit card programs, security and disaster recovery programs, or other operational programs;
(2) Partnership arrangements with community based service organizations or government agencies;
(3) Loan programs, including, but not limited to, micro business loans, payday loan alternatives, education loans, and real estate loans; and
(4) Acquisition, expansion or improvement of office space or equipment, including branch facilities and ATMs.
(b) In addition to the examples listed in subsection (a) of this section, NCUA may identify other funding priorities and uses in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, which is discussed in § 705.6 of this Part.
(a) NCUA may make loans, in such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as it may determine, from the Fund to Participating Credit Unions for any of the examples identified in § 705.4 of this Part or as identified in a particular Notice of Funding Opportunity.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) Semiannual interest payments (beginning six months after the initial distribution of a loan) and semiannual principal payments (beginning one year after the initial distribution of a loan) will be required.
(f)
(g)
(1) Generally loan monies made available must be matched by the Participating Credit Union in an amount equal to the loan amount. Any loan monies matched by nonmember share deposits are not subject to the 20% limitation on nonmember deposits under § 701.32 of this Chapter. Participating Credit Unions must maintain the increase in the total amount of share deposits for the duration of the loan. Once the loan is repaid, nonmember share deposits accepted to meet the matching requirement are subject to § 701.32 of this Chapter.
(2) Upon approval of its loan application, and before it meets its matching requirement, a Participating Credit Union may receive the entire loan commitment in a single payment. If any funds are withheld, the remainder of the funds committed will be available to the Participating Credit Union only after it has documented that it has met the match requirement.
(3) Failure of a Participating Credit Union to generate the required match within the time specified in the loan documents may result in the reduction of the loan proportionate to the amount of match actually generated. Payment of any additional funds initially approved may be limited as appropriate to reflect the revised amount of the loan approved. Any funds already advanced to the Participating Credit Union in excess of the revised amount of loan approval must be repaid immediately to NCUA. Failure to repay such funds to NCUA upon demand may result in the default of the entire loan.
(h) Other terms and conditions pertaining to loans, including but not necessarily limited to duration, repayment obligations, and covenants, will be specified in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and applicable loan documents to be signed by the Participating Credit Union.
(a)
(1) NCUA may supplement the information contained in the Notice of Funding Opportunity through such other media as it determines appropriate, including Letters to Credit Unions, direct notices to Qualifying Credit Unions, and announcements on its Web site.
(b)
(1) Applications to participate and qualify for a loan or technical assistance grant under the Program may be obtained from the National Credit Union Administration, Community Development Revolving Loan Program for Credit Unions as outlined in the Notice of Funds Opportunity.
(2) With respect to loans, NCUA will also require a Qualifying Credit Union to develop and submit a narrative describing how the Qualifying Credit Union intends to use the money obtained from the Fund to enhance the products or services it provides to its membership and how those enhanced products or services support the membership and community served by the Qualifying Credit Union. The Notice of Funding Opportunity may include additional details and requirements.
(3) In addition to those items required in this section, a Qualifying Nonfederally Insured Credit Union must also include the following:
(i) A copy of its most recent external audit report;
(ii) Proof of deposit and surety bond insurance which states the maximum insurance levels permitted by the policies;
(iii) A balance sheet, an income and expense statement, and a schedule of delinquent loans, for each of the four most recent quarter-ends;
(iv) A description of any other involvement in existing community development programs of state and Federal agencies; and
(v) An agreement to be subject to examination by NCUA.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Within thirty days of its receipt of a notice of non-qualification, a credit union may appeal the Administrator's decision to the NCUA Board. The scope of the NCUA Board's review is limited to the threshold question of qualification and not the issue of whether, among qualified applicants, a particular loan or technical assistance grant is funded.
(2) The foregoing procedure shall apply only with respect to applications received by NCUA during an open period in which funds are available and NCUA has called for applications. Any application submitted by an applicant during a period in which NCUA has not called for applications will be rejected, except for those applications submitted under § 705.7 if this section, and such rejection shall not be subject to appeal or review by the NCUA Board.
(g)
(a) On an emergency basis, subject to funds availability, NCUA may consider a funding request from a Qualifying Credit Union experiencing an unplanned or unexpected expense that the Qualifying Credit Union is unable to meet with its own resources. The Qualifying Credit Union must demonstrate a compelling need for immediate action or attention without which its continued operations would be threatened or severely disrupted. NCUA, in its discretion, will determine whether the situation constitutes an emergency and if the Qualifying Credit Union is required to submit any additional information to show why the funds are needed on an emergency basis. The Administrator will determine and substantiate any reason to expedite funding in such case. Requests for loans or technical assistance grants under this section will be addressed on an ongoing basis and are outside the scope of the Notice of Funding Opportunity. Technical assistance grants and loans provided on this basis must still exhibit a purpose consistent with the goals of the Fund. Loans and technical assistance grants made under this section are not anticipated to be a regular source of funding for any one or more Qualifying Credit Unions.
(a) A Qualifying State-chartered Credit Union that has submitted an application to NCUA for participation must obtain written concurrence from its respective state regulatory authority before NCUA will approve its application. A Qualifying State-chartered Credit Union must also make copies of its state examination reports available to NCUA and must agree to examination by NCUA for the limited purpose of compliance with this Part. An agreement to examination under this section is in addition to the requirement in § 705.6(b)(3)(v) of this Part, which requires non-federally insured, state-chartered credit unions to agree to be examined by NCUA as a condition of qualification under the Program.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) Technical assistance grants may be funded in such amounts, and in accordance with such terms and conditions, as NCUA may establish. In general, technical assistance grants are provided on a reimbursement basis, to cover expenditures approved in advance by NCUA and supported by receipts evidencing payment by the Participating Credit Union.
(1)
(2)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) Model G250 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the pilot-compartment view through a hydrophobic windshield coating, in lieu of windshield wipers. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
We must receive your comments by July 11, 2011.
You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM457, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356. You may deliver two copies to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. You must mark your comments: Docket No. NM457. You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Loran Haworth, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1133; facsimile (425) 227-1149.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which you have written the docket number. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.
On March 30, 2006, GALP applied for a type certificate for their new Model G250 airplane. The G250 is an 8-10 passenger (19 maximum), twin-engine airplane with a maximum operating altitude of 45,000 feet and a range of approximately 3,400 nautical miles. Airplane dimensions are 61.69-foot wing span, 66.6-foot overall length, and 20.8-foot tail height. Maximum takeoff weight is 39,600 pounds and maximum landing weight 32,700 pounds. Maximum cruise speed is mach 0.85, dive speed is mach 0.92. The avionics suite will be the Rockwell Collins Pro Line Fusion.
The Model G250 airplane incorporates novel or unusual design
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, GALP must show that the Model G250 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model G250 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model G250 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
The GALP Model G250 airplane flight-deck design incorporates a hydrophobic coating to provide adequate pilot-compartment view in the presence of precipitation. Sole reliance on such a coating, without windshield wipers, constitutes a novel or unusual design feature for which the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards. Therefore, special conditions are required that provide the level of safety equivalent to that established by the regulations.
14 CFR 25.773(b)(1) requires a means to maintain a clear portion of the windshield for both pilots to have a sufficiently extensive view along the flight path during precipitation conditions. The regulations require this means to maintain such an area during precipitation in heavy rain at speeds up to 1.5 V
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the GALP Model G250 airplane. Should GALP apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the GALP Model G250 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the GALP Model G250 airplane.
The airplane must have a means to maintain a clear portion of the windshield, during precipitation conditions, enough for both pilots to have a sufficiently extensive view along the ground or flight path in normal taxi and flight attitudes of the airplane. This means must be designed to function, without continuous attention on the part of the crew, in conditions from light misting precipitation to heavy rain, at speeds from fully stopped in still air to 1.5 V
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
A TBM 700 operator reported a case of elevator trim tab actuator jamming once the trim tab arrived to stop.
The investigations conducted by the trim tab actuator manufacturer have shown that there was a discrepancy with PRECILEC manufacturing process of elevator trim tab actuator which caused this event. It has been determined as well that this discrepancy is limited to a batch of Serial Numbers (S/N).
If not detected and corrected, a jammed trim tab could lead to unusual control forces, resulting in lower controllability, particularly if combined with adverse flight conditions at landing.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 11, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact SOCATA—Direction des Services—65921 Tarbes Cedex 9—France; telephone +33 (0) 62 41 7300, fax +33 (0) 62 41 76 54, or for North America: SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry Airport (HWO), Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone: (954) 893-1400; fax: (954) 964-4141; e-mail:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2011-0060, dated March 29, 2011 (Correction: March 30, 2011) (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
A TBM 700 operator reported a case of elevator trim tab actuator jamming once the trim tab arrived to stop.
The investigations conducted by the trim tab actuator manufacturer have shown that there was a discrepancy with PRECILEC manufacturing process of elevator trim tab actuator which caused this event. It has been determined as well that this discrepancy is limited to a batch of Serial Numbers (S/N).
If not detected and corrected, a jammed trim tab could lead to unusual control forces, resulting in lower controllability, particularly if combined with adverse flight conditions at landing.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires the inspection of the elevators trim tab actuator P/N 6071017251 for identification of S/N and, in case of findings, the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
DAHER-SOCATA has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 377 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $32,045, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $595 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 AD:
(a) We must receive comments by July 11, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 530, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
A TBM 700 operator reported a case of elevator trim tab actuator jamming once the trim tab arrived to stop.
The investigations conducted by the trim tab actuator manufacturer have shown that there was a discrepancy with PRECILEC manufacturing process of elevator trim tab actuator which caused this event. It has been determined as well that this discrepancy is limited to a batch of Serial Numbers (S/N).
If not detected and corrected, a jammed trim tab could lead to unusual control forces, resulting in lower controllability, particularly if combined with adverse flight conditions at landing.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires the inspection of the elevators trim tab actuator P/N 6071017251 for identification of S/N and, in case of findings, the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the serial number (S/N) of Left Hand and Right Hand PRECILEC elevator trim tab actuators following DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
(2) If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD you find any affected elevator trim tab actuator as listed in DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011, installed on an airplane, before further flight, replace it with a serviceable part following DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install on an airplane any PRECILEC elevator trim tab actuator part number 6071017251 with an S/N listed in DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011, unless it has been repaired in accordance with DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
Trim tab actuators repaired by a service center are identified with screw green colored locking varnish as shown in figure 2 of DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011-0060, dated March 29, 2011 (Correction: March 30, 2011); and DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011, for related information. For service information related to this AD, contact SOCATA—Direction des Services—65921 Tarbes Cedex 9—France; telephone +33 (0) 62 41 7300, fax +33 (0) 62 41 76 54, or for North America: SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry Airport (HWO), Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone: (954) 893-1400; fax: (954) 964-4141; e-mail:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Cocoa, FL, as the Merritt Island Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Merritt Island Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2011-0070; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-43, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0070; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-43) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Annotators wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0070; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-43.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to support new standard instrument approach procedures developed at Merritt Island Airport, Cocoa, FL. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Merritt Island NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Merritt Island Airport, Cocoa, FL.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Merritt Island Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 303° bearing from the Merritt Island Airport, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 7 miles northwest of the airport; excluding that airspace within the Titusville, FL, and Melbourne, FL, Class E airspace areas.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Kayenta Airport, Kayenta, AZ. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Kayenta Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0393; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2011-0393 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0393 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-2”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kayenta, AZ, to accommodate aircraft using new RNAV GPS standard instrument approach procedures at Kayenta Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules operations at the airport.
Class E Airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E Airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1)
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Kayenta Airport, Kayenta, AZ
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the Kayenta Airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 066° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 14.5 miles northeast of Kayenta Airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 36°54′00″ N., long. 110°03′00″ W.; to lat. 36°48′00″ N., long. 109°44′00″ W.; to lat. 36°26′00″ N., long. 109°14′00″ W.; to lat. 36°11′00″ N., long. 109°26′00″ W.; to lat. 36°03′00″ N., long. 110°12′00″ W.; to lat. 36°22′00″ N., long. 110°44′00″ W.; to lat. 36°42′00″ N., long. 110°31′00″ W.; to lat. 36°50′00″ N., long. 110°25′00″ W., thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E Airspace at Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport, Glasgow, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations. This action would also update the airport name.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0362; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2011-0362 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-7) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0362 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-7”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E surface airspace and Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport, Glasgow, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport, and would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations. This action would also update the airport name from Glasgow International Airport to Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport.
Class E Airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E Airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport, Glasgow, MT.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010 is amended as follows:
Within a 4.2-mile radius of the Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of the Glasgow VOR/DME 327° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7.4 miles northwest of the VOR/DME, and within 2.7 miles each side of the Glasgow VOR/DME 127° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast of the VOR/DME, and within 2.7 miles each side of the Milk River NDB 106° bearing extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7.4 miles east of the NDB.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.6-mile radius of the Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface starting at Lat. 48°40′00″ N., long. 106°00′02″ W.; to Lat. 48°32′00″ N., long. 105°50′02″ W.; to Lat. 48°03′00″ N., long. 105°50′02″ W.; to Lat. 48°03′00″ N., long. 106°00′02″ W.; to Lat. 47°49′00″ N., long. 106°22′32″ W.; to Lat. 48°15′00″ N., long. 107°07′02″ W.; to Lat. 48°40′00″ N., long. 107°07′02″ W., thence to point of beginning.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
NASA proposes to revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to include guidance consistent with NASA's authority under Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act (CSCA) of 1992. NASA may enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for commercial space goods or services. Anchor Tenancy means “an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable.”
Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before July 25, 2011 to be
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 2007-AD64, using either of the following methods: (1) Regulations.gov:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division (Suite 5G84); (202) 358-0592; facsimile 202-358-3083; e-mail:
NASA's FAR Supplement currently includes an incorrect statement that anchor tenancy contracts are not permitted. This proposed rule removes that statement, consistent with NASA's authority under Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act (CSCA) of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 5806) which provides authorization for NASA to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for commercial space goods or services.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, dated January 18, 2011, NASA determined that this rule is not excessively burdensome to the public, and is consistent with the administrative nature of rule. This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) is not applicable because the NFS changes do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1812 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1812.
42 U.S.C. 2455(a), 2473(c)(1).
2. Section 1812.7000 is revised to read as follows.
(a) Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act, 15 U.S.C. 5806, allows NASA, subject to appropriations, to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a good or service if the Administrator determines that—
(1) The good or service meets the mission requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(2) The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;
(3) The good or service is procured through a competitive process;
(4) Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States Government have been specifically identified;
(5) The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and
(6) Private capital is at risk in the venture.
(b) Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act, 15 U.S.C. 5806, allows for contracts entered into under paragraph (a) of this section to provide for the payment of termination liability in the event that the Government terminates such contracts for is convenience.
(1) Contracts that provide for this payment of termination liability shall include a fixed schedule of such termination liability payments. Liability under such contracts shall not exceed the total payments which the Government would have made after the date of termination to purchase the good or service if the contract were not terminated.
(2) Subject to appropriations, funds available for such termination liability payments may be used for purchase of the good or service upon successful delivery of the good or service pursuant to the contract. In such case, sufficient funds shall remain available to cover any remaining termination liability.
(c) Limitations—
(1) Contracts entered into under this section shall not exceed 10 years in duration.
(2) Such contracts shall provide for delivery of the good or service on a firm, fixed price basis.
(3) To the extent practicable, reasonable performance specifications shall be used to define technical requirements in such contracts.
(4) In any such contract, the Administrator shall reserve the right to completely or partially terminate the contract without payment of such termination liability because of the contractor's actual or anticipated failure to perform its contractual obligations.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC;
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to a 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) titled
The agency invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis to be included in the draft SEIS. In addition, the agency gives notice of this environmental analysis and decision making process so that interested and affected people know how they may participate and contribute to the final decision.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by June 24, 2011. The draft SEIS is projected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fall 2011 and will begin a 45 day comment period. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Record of Decision are expected to be published in the spring of 2012.
You may comment on the project in the following ways: Send written comments to Ketchikan-Misty Fiord Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Attn: Bell Island Geothermal Lease, 3031 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan AK 99901. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
Sarah Samuelson, Tongass Minerals Group, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801. 1-907-789-6274. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of this initiative is to update the PEIS that was prepared by the BLM to address compliance actions and key resource concerns not previously analyzed in Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS. Chapter 11 examines whether or not three pending lease applications on Bell Island and Cleveland Peninsula are available for geothermal leasing by the BLM. The PEIS did not recognize that the lease applications are in the North Cleveland Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) 529, nor was adequate public scoping or tribal consultation performed. Thus, the analysis provided in the PEIS does not address actual current conditions. The Tongass National Forest must update the PEIS to analyze effects to the roadless area before making a decision whether or not to consent to leasing the land.
The action is needed to fulfill the Forest Service obligations under Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding geothermal leasing and permitting. Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that the USDOI and the U.S. Forest Service reduce the backlog of geothermal lease applications by 90 percent by August 8, 2010. Section 222(d) dictates that it is a priority for the BLM and the Forest Service to ensure timely completion of actions such as amendments to land use plans, as necessary to process the pending lease applications. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and helps move the Tongass National Forest towards desired conditions described in this plan.
The action proposed to meet the purpose and need is for the Forest Service to provide a consent determination to the BLM to issue the three leases in the Tongass National Forest to the geothermal lease applicant, based upon the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) provided by the PEIS Volume II, Chapter 11. The RFD describes in general terms the best professional estimate of the potential development that may occur. The decision on this SEIS would only be for an approving or disapproving consent determination for the BLM to issue the leases. Any future site-specific development of the leases would require further analysis under NEPA.
The project area is 7,680 acres encompassing most of Bell Island as well as a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula, on the adjacent mainland. Bell Island is located near the southeastern end of the Alaskan Panhandle; approximately 43 miles north of Ketchikan. Lease boundaries could be adjusted in the decision to avoid unacceptable impacts on sensitive resources. The three leases are described as follows:
Two alternatives were considered in Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS analysis. In Alternative A, the No- Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not issue a consent determination for any of the lease applications. For Alternative B, Leasing with Stipulations, the Forest Service would issue a consent determination for the lease applications, and the BLM would issue the leases with the stipulations identified in Volume I, Chapter 2 of the PEIS and any additional stipulations that the Forest Service attaches to the record of decision (ROD).
The Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaksa, 99901 is the Responsible Official for making the decision.
Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:
If authorized, the decision would give consent to BLM to issue three pending leases with the stipulations identified in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and any additional stipulations that the Forest Service attaches to the ROD.
The Tongass National Forest portions of the lease sites are within the North Cleveland IRA 529, comprised of 109,639 acres. A non-discretionary restriction (roadless area stipulation) was developed in the PEIS for roadless areas on any leases with National Forest Service (NFS) inventoried roadless
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. In addition to this notice, a scoping document will be posted on the Tongass National Forest public website at
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this constitutes notice of the upcoming meeting of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee meets twice annually to advise the GIPSA Administrator on the programs and services that GIPSA delivers under the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Recommendations by the Advisory Committee help GIPSA better meet the needs of its customers who operate in a dynamic and changing marketplace.
June 21, 2011, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and June 22, 2010, 8 a.m. to Noon.
The Advisory Committee meeting will take place at GIPSA's Technical Service Division, 10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64153.
Requests to orally address the Advisory Committee during the meeting or written comments may be
Terri L. Henry by phone at (202) 205-8281 or by e-mail at
The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the GIPSA Administrator with respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71-87k). Information about the Advisory Committee is available on the GIPSA Web site at
The agenda will include an overview of Federal Grain Inspection Service 2011 operations, international programs, contract review program findings, exceptions program, sorghum odor, new rice sheller implementation, moisture measurement—rice and soybean study results, wheat gluten tests, rapid test kit evaluation program status, and the quality management program.
For a copy of the agenda please contact Terri L. Henry by phone at (202) 205-8281 or by e-mail at
Public participation will be limited to written statements unless permission is received from the Committee Chairperson to orally address the Advisory Committee. The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information or related accommodations should contact Terri L. Henry at the telephone number listed above.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning and orientation meeting of the North Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene via teleconference at 3 p.m. (MDT) and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. (MDT) on Monday, June 27, 2011. The purpose of the planning meeting is to provide ethics training and orientation to the new committee. The Committee will also be briefed on activities by the Commission, as well as other SACs in the region.
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: (800) 516-9896, followed by Conference ID #: 8334. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. For persons with hearing impairments, dial 711 for relay services and enter 1-800-516-9896 followed by the Conference ID #: 8334.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by July 27, 2011. Comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are directed to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning and orientation meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene via teleconference at 2 p.m. (MDT) and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. (MDT) on Wednesday, June 29, 2011. The purpose of the planning meeting is to provide ethics training and orientation to the new committee. The Committee will also be briefed on activities by the Commission, as well as other SACs in the region.
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: (800) 516-9896, followed by Conference ID#: 8334. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. For persons with hearing impairments, dial 711 for relay services and enter 1-800-516-9896 followed by the Conference ID#: 8334.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by July 27, 2011. Comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 999-18th Street, Suite 1380S, Denver, CO 80202, or faxed to (303) 866-1050, or e-mailed to
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are directed to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee on June 14-15, 2011 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 14 at 10 a.m. and Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Eastland Park Hotel, 157 High Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: (207) 775-5411; fax: (207) 775-1066.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will receive an update from the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) on the process for setting Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for all groundfish stocks for the period 2012-14. The PDT will provide the SSC with preliminary information comparing past survey trends to stock size. In addition, the PDT will describe other analyses that are planned to examine the reliability of stock projections. The SSC may provide guidance about any further work on these issues.
Additionally, the SSC will review analyses provided by the Skate PDT for the purpose of recommending an ABC for the skate fishery for fishing years 2012-2013. The SSC's recommendation will be discussed at the June 21-23 Council meeting in Portland, ME.
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, the SSC will continue its review of the analyses provided by the Skate PDT and recommend an ABC for the skate fishery.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet June 6-13, 2011. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 9 a.m., reconvening each day through Monday, June 13, 2011. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 9 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 8 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
Meetings of the Pacific Council and its advisory entities will be held at the Doubletree Hotel Spokane City Center, 322 North Spokane Falls Court, Spokane, WA 99201; telephone: (509) 455-9600.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: (503) 820-2280 or (866) 806-7204 toll free; or access the Pacific Council Web site,
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
On April 21, 2011, NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to request public comment on potential revisions to the National Standard 10 (NS10) Guidelines and announced a public meeting to be held on May 19, 2011 in Silver Spring, Maryland. In this notice, NMFS announces several additional meetings where presentations will be given on the National Standard 10 ANPR. The public will be allowed to comment at the meetings.
Meetings are scheduled in June and July. Dates and locations of meetings are listed under
Presentations on National Standard 10 will be given at the following additional locations:
1. Joint Session of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, June 10, 2011, 1-1:45 p.m, at the Marriott Beachside Hotel, 3841 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida 33040.
2. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Meeting, June 16, 2011, 9-10 a.m., Danfords Hotel & Marina, 25 East Broadway, Port Jefferson, New York 11777.
3. New England Fishery Management Council Meeting, June 21, 2011, afternoon session, Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, Maine 04101.
4. Swedish Cultural Center, 1920 Dexter Ave. N, Seattle, Washington 98109, July 19, 2011, 10 a.m.-noon.
The established times for the National Standard 10 presentations during the various Regional Fishery Management Council meetings may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to other items on the Councils' agenda.
Debra Lambert, National Marine Fisheries Service, 301-713-2341.
National Standard 10 states: “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.” NMFS published final guidelines for NS10 in 1998 (63 FR 24212; May 1, 1998). NMFS published an ANPR to request public comment on potential revisions to the NS10 guidelines on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 22342). More background on this action is contained in the ANPR published on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 22342) and is not repeated here.
The public meetings listed in this notice will be accessible to people with physical disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Debra Lambert (301-713-2341), at least 5 days before the scheduled session.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Stock Assessment Review Panel (STAR Panel) for the Pacific ocean perch and petrale sole stock assessments will hold a work session that is open to the public.
The STAR Panel for Pacific ocean perch and petrale sole stock assessments will be held beginning at 9 a.m., Monday, June 20, 2011 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The STAR panel will reconvene on Tuesday, June 21 and will continue through Friday, June 24, 2011 beginning at 8 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business.
The Stock Assessment Review Panel for Pacific ocean perch and petrale sole stock assessments will be held at the Hotel Deca, 4507 Brooklyn Avenue, NE., Seattle, WA 98105; telephone: (1-800) 899-0251.
Ms. Stacey Miller, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center; telephone: (541) 961-8475; or Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The purpose of the STAR Panel for Pacific ocean perch and petrale sole is to review draft 2011 stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information for Pacific ocean perch and petrale sole, work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions, and produce a STAR Panel report for use by the Pacific Council family and other interested persons for developing management recommendations for 2013-14 fisheries. No management actions will be decided by the STAR Panel. The STAR Panel's role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Pacific Council at its September meeting in San Mateo, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA, to conduct research on marine mammals.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Tammy Adams or Amy Sloan, (301) 713-2289.
On March 14, 2011, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes taking marine mammals in California, Oregon, and Washington to investigate population status, health, demographic parameters, life history and foraging ecology of California sea lions (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK, to conduct research on marine mammals.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Tammy Adams or Laura Morse, (301) 713-2289.
On April 4, 2011, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes taking spotted (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; issuance of permit and permit modifications.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued a permit and two permit modifications to conduct research on marine mammals or sea turtles.
The permit, permit modifications, and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: See
Amy Hapeman (for all permits) or one of the following analysts: Carrie Hubard (For File No. 14245), Colette Cairns (for File No. 1596-03) or Kristy Beard (for File No. 14726-01) at (301)713-2289.
On April 27, 2010 and December 29, 2010, notices were published in the
On May 12, 2010, notice was published in the
On February 3, 2011, notice was published in the
The requested permit modifications have been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
An environmental assessment (EA) or supplemental EA was prepared for each permit request analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, issuance of the permits and permit modifications was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the
Documents may be reviewed at: all of the following locations for File No. 14245, the Southwest Region for File No. 1596-03, and the Southeast Region for File No. 14726-01:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376;
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426;
Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249;
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018;
Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2200; fax (808)973-2941;
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO), for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting proposed seabird and pinniped research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore in central California. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to PRBO to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, four species of marine mammals during the specified activity from July, 2011 through June, 2012.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 24, 2011.
Comments on the application should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the above address, telephoning the contact listed here (see
Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 713-2289, ext. 113.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(D)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to authorize, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
NMFS received an application on January 10, 2011, from PRBO requesting the taking by harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals, incidental to conducting seabird and pinniped research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore in central California (CA). PRBO, along with partners Oikonos Ecosystem Knowledge
PRBO's proposed research activities involve monitoring and censusing seabird colonies; observing seabird nesting habitat; restoring nesting burrows; observing breeding elephant seals, and resupplying a field station. The proposed activities would occur in the vicinity of pinniped haul out sites located on Southeast Farallon Island (37°41′54.32″ N, 123°0′8.33″ W), Año Nuevo Island (37°6′29.25″ N, 122°20′12.20″ W), or within Point Reyes National Seashore (37°59′38.61″ N, 122°58′24.90″ W) in Central CA.
Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; (2) noise generated during restoration activities and loading operations while resupplying the field station; and (3) human presence during seabird and pinniped research activities, may have the potential to cause California sea lions (
To date, NMFS has issued three 1-year IHAs to PRBO for the conduct of the same activities from 2007 to 2010. This is PRBO's fourth request for an IHA and the monitoring results from the 2008-2009 IHA appear in the Proposed Monitoring section of this notice.
The proposed action area consists of the following three locations in the northeast Pacific Ocean:
The South Farallon Islands (SFI) consist of Southeast Farallon Island (SEFI) located at 37°41′54.32″ N, 123°0′8.33″ W and West End Island (WEI). These two islands are directly adjacent to each other and separated by only a 30-foot (ft) (9.1 meter (m)) channel. The SFI have a land area of approximately 120 acres (0.49 square kilometers (km)) and are part of the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. The islands are located near the edge of the continental shelf 28 miles (mi) (45.1 km) west of San Francisco, CA, and lie within the waters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (NMS).
Año Nuevo Island (ANI) located at 37°6′29.25″ N, 122°20′12.20″ W is one-quarter mile (402 m) offshore of Año Nuevo Point in San Mateo County, CA. This small 25-acre (0.1 square km) island is part of the Año Nuevo State Reserve, all of which is owned and operated by California State Parks. ANI lies within the Monterey Bay NMS and the newly established Año Nuevo State Marine Conservation Area.
Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) located is approximately 40 miles (64.3 km) north of San Francisco Bay and also lies within the Gulf of the Farallones NMS. The proposed research areas (Life Boat Station, Drakes Beach, and Point Bonita) are within the headland coastal areas of the national park.
PRBO proposes to conduct: (1) Daily observations of seabird colonies at a maximum frequency of three 15-minute (min) visits per day; and (2) conduct daily observations of breeding common murres (
The potential for incidental take related to the mark/recapture studies is very low as these activities are conducted within the interior of the island away from the intertidal areas where the pinnipeds haul out. Most potential for incidental take would occur when the researchers approach or depart the intertidal area by motorboat or when the researchers walk within 50 ft (15.2 m) of the haulout areas to enter the observation blinds to observe shorebirds.
PRBO proposes to resupply the field station once every two weeks at a maximum frequency of 26 visits. Resupply activities involve personnel approaching either the North Landing or East Landing by motorboat. At East Landing—the primary landing site—all personnel assisting with the landing would stay on the loading platform approximately 30 ft (9.1 m) above the water. At North Landing, loading operations would occur at the water level in the intertidal areas. Most potential for incidental take would occur when the researchers approach the area by motorboat or when the researchers load or unload supplies onshore.
PRBO, in collaboration with Oikonos—Ecosystem Knowledge, proposes to monitor seabird burrow nesting habitat quality and to conduct habitat restoration at a maximum frequency of 20 visits per year. This activity involves two to three researchers accessing the north side of the island by a 12 ft (3.7 m) Zodiac boat. Once onshore, the researchers will check subterranean nest boxes and restore any nesting habitat for approximately 15 min.
Most potential for incidental take would occur at the landing beach on the north side of the island when the researchers arrive and depart to check the boxes. Non-breeding pinnipeds may occasionally be present, including California sea lions that may be hauled out near a small group of subterranean seabird nest boxes on the island terrace. In both locations researchers are located more than 50 ft (15.2 m) away from any pinnipeds which may be hauled out.
The National Park Service in collaboration with PRBO monitors seabird breeding and roosting colonies; conducts habitat restoration; removes non-native plants; monitors intertidal areas; maintains coastal dune habitat. Seabird monitoring usually involves one or two observers conducting the survey
A majority of the research occurs in areas where marine mammals are not present. However, the potential for incidental harassment will occur at the landing beaches along Point Reyes Headland, boat ramps, or parking lots where northern elephant seals, harbor seals, or California sea lions may be hauled out in the vicinity.
Pinniped research activities involve surveying breeding northern elephant seals on WEI between early December and late February. At least three researchers would visit the site at a maximum frequency of five times per year. To conduct the census, the researchers would travel by foot approximately 1,500 ft (457.2 m) above the site to conduct the census. Historically, a few juvenile Steller sea lions may haul out on a spit of rocks called Shell Beach Rocks below the transit path to the northern elephant seal haul out. Thus, the potential for incidental harassment of Steller sea lions may occur when the researchers transit above Shell Beach Rocks.
NMFS expects that acoustic and visual stimuli resulting from the proposed motorboat operations and human presence has the potential to harass marine mammals, incidental to the conduct of the proposed activities. NMFS expects these disturbances to be temporary and result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals.
The marine mammals most likely to be harassed incidental to conducting seabird and pinniped research at the proposed research areas on SEFI, ANI, and PRNS are primarily California sea lions, northern elephant seals, Pacific harbor seals, and to a lesser extent the eastern distinct population of the Steller sea lion which is listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
General information of these species can be found in Caretta
Northern elephant seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The northern elephant breeding population is distributed from central Baja California, Mexico, to the Point Reyes Peninsula in northern California. Along this coastline there are 13 major breeding colonies.
Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico were all originally derived from a few tens or a few hundreds of individuals surviving in Mexico after being nearly hunted to extinction (Stewart
A complete population count of elephant seals is not possible because all age classes are not ashore at the same time. Elephant seal population size is typically estimated by counting the number of pups produced and multiplying by the inverse of the expected ratio of pups to total animals (McCann, 1985). Stewart
At Point Reyes, the population grew at 32.8 percent per year between 1988 and 1997 (Sydeman and Allen, 1999) and around 10 percent per year since 2000 (S. Allen, unpubl. data), and in 2006 around 700 pups were born at three primary breeding areas. The population on the Farallon Islands has declined by 3.4 percent per year since 1983, and in recent years numbers have fluctuated between 100 and 200 pups (W. Sydeman, D. Lee, unpubl. data). Observers first sighted elephant seals on Año Nuevo Island in 1955 and today the population ranges from 900 to 1,000 adults (M. Lowry, unpubl. data).
Elephant seals congregate in central California to breed from late November to March. Females typically give birth to a single pup and attend the pup for up to six weeks. Breeding occurs after the pup is weaned by attending males. After breeding, seals migrate to the Gulf of Alaska or deeper waters in the eastern Pacific. Adult females and juveniles return to terrestrial colonies to molt in April and May, and males return in June and July to molt, remaining onshore for around three weeks.
California sea lions are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The California sea lion includes three subspecies:
In 2009, the estimated population of the U.S. stock of California sea lion ranged from 141,842 to 238,000 animals and the maximum population growth rate was 6.52 percent when pup counts from El Niño years (1983, 1984, 1992, 1993, 1998, and 2003) were removed (Carretta
Major rookeries for the California sea lion exist on the Channel Islands off southern California and on the islands situated along the east and west coasts of Baja California. Males are polygamous, establishing breeding territories that may include up to fourteen females. They defend their territories with aggressive physical displays and vocalization. Sea lions reach sexual maturity at four to five
The U.S. stock of California sea lion is the only stock present in the proposed research area and in recent years, California sea lions have begun to breed annually in small numbers at Southeast Farallon and Año Nuevo Islands.
On the Farallon Islands, California sea lions haul out in many intertidal areas year round, fluctuating from several hundred to several thousand animals. California sea lions at PRNS haul out at only a few locations, but will occur on human structures such as boat ramps. The annual population averages around 300 to 500 during the fall through spring months, although on occasion, several thousand sea lions can arrive depending upon local prey resources (S. Allen, unpublished data). On Año Nuevo Island, California sea lions may haul out at one of eight beach areas on the perimeter of the island (see Figure 2 in the Application). The island's average population ranges from 4,000 to 9,500 animals (M. Lowry, unpublished data).
Pacific harbor seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The animals inhabit near-shore coastal and estuarine areas from Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. Pacific harbor seals are divided into two subspecies:
In 2009, the estimated population of the California of Pacific harbor seals ranged from 31,600 to 34,233 animals and the maximum population growth rate was 3.5 percent. The estimated population of the Oregon/Washington coast stocks was 24,732 animals (Carretta
In California, over 500 harbor seal haulout sites are widely distributed along the mainland and offshore islands, and include rocky shores, beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry
Harbor seals mate at sea and females give birth during the spring and summer, although, the pupping season varies with latitude. Pups are nursed for an average of 24 days and are ready to swim minutes after being born. Harbor seal pupping takes place at many locations and rookery size varies from a few pups to many hundreds of pups.
The Steller sea lion eastern stock is listed as threatened under the ESA and is categorized as depleted under the MMPA. Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California (Loughlin
In 2008, the estimated population of the eastern U.S. stock ranged from 44,404 to 55,832 animals and the maximum population growth rate was 3.1 percent (Angliss and Allen, 2010).
The eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions breeds on rookeries located in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California; there are no rookeries located in Washington state. Counts of pups on rookeries conducted near the end of the birthing season are nearly complete counts of pup production.
Despite the wide-ranging movements of juveniles and adult males in particular, exchange between rookeries by breeding adult females and males (other than between adjoining rookeries) appears low, although males have a higher tendency to disperse than females (NMFS 1995, Trujillo
The current population of eastern Steller sea lions in the proposed research area is estimated to number between 50 and 750 animals. The PRBO estimates that between 50 and 150 Steller sea lions live on the Farallon Islands, and the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) estimates between 400 and 600 live on ANI (PRBO unpublished data, 2008; SWFSC unpublished data, 2008).
On SEFI, the abundance of females declined an average of 3.6 percent per year from 1974 to 1997 (Sydeman and Allen, 1999). Pup counts at ANI declined 5 percent annually through the 1990s (NOAA Stock Assessment, 2003), and have apparently stabilized between 2001 and 2005 (M. Lowry, SWFSC unpublished data).
In 2000, the combined pup estimate for both islands was 349. In 2005, the pup estimate was 204 on ANI. Pup counts on the Farallon Islands have generally varied from five to 15 (Hastings and Sydeman, 2002; PRBO unpublished data). Pups have not been born at Point Reyes Headland since the 1970s and Steller sea lions are seen in very low numbers there currently (S. Allen, unpubl. data).
Steller sea lions give birth in May through July and breeding commences a couple of weeks after birth. Pups are weaned during the winter and spring of the following year.
California (southern) sea otters (
Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Motorboat operations; and (2) the
Marine mammals produce sounds in various important contexts—social interactions, foraging, navigating, and to responding to predators. The best available science suggests that pinnipeds have a functional aerial hearing sensitivity between 75 hertz (Hz) and 75 kilohertz (kHz) and can produce a diversity of sounds, though generally from 100 Hz to several tens of kHz (Southall,
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is called the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is called temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Southall
Pinnipeds have the potential to be disturbed by airborne and underwater noise generated by the small boats equipped with outboard engines (Richardson, Greene, Malme, and Thomson, 1995). However, there is a dearth of information on acoustic effects of motorboats on pinniped hearing and communication and to NMFS' knowledge; there has been no specific documentation of hearing impairment in free-ranging pinnipeds exposed to small motorboats during realistic field conditions.
Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf
Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor seals off haul out sites (Allen
In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats
In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington state. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 min. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 min. of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007).
As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 μPa) non-pulse sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall
Finally, no research activities would occur on pinniped rookeries and breeding animals are concentrated in areas where researchers would not visit. Therefore, NMFS does not expect mother and pup separation or crushing of pups to occur.
The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described later
NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed operations would result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
PRBO has based the mitigation measures described herein, to be implemented for the proposed seabird and pinniped research activities, on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous PRBO seabird and pinniped research activities as approved by NMFS; (2) recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities PRBO and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Abide by all of the Terms and Conditions listed in the Incidental Take Statement for NMFS' 2008 Biological Opinion, including: Monitoring for offshore predators and reporting on observed behaviors of Steller sea lions in relation to the disturbance.
(2) Abide by the Terms and Conditions of Scientific Research Permit 373-1868-00.
(3) Postpone beach landings on Año Nuevo Island until pinnipeds that may be present on the beach have slowly entered the water.
(4) Select a pathway of approach to research sites that minimizes the number of marine mammals harassed, with the first priority being avoiding the disturbance of Steller sea lions at haul-outs.
(5) Avoid visits to sites used by pinnipeds for pupping.
(6) Monitor for offshore predators and not approach hauled out Steller sea lions or other pinnipeds if great white sharks (
(7) Keep voices hushed and bodies low to the ground in the visual presence of pinnipeds.
(8) Conduct seabird observations at North Landing on Southeast Farallon Island in an observation blind, shielded from the view of hauled out pinnipeds.
(9) Crawl slowly to access seabird nest boxes on Año Nuevo Island if pinnipeds are within view.
(10) Coordinate research visits to intertidal areas of Southeast Farallon Island (to reduce potential take) and to coordinate research goals for Año Nuevo Island to minimize the number of trips to the island.
(11) Coordinate monitoring schedules on Año Nuevo Island, so that areas near any pinnipeds would be accessed only once per visit.
(12) Have the lead biologist serve as an observer to evaluate incidental take.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (i) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (ii) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (iii) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
PRBO has complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under the previous authorization for the 2008-2009 seasons. In compliance with the 2008-2009 IHA, PRBO submitted a final report on their activities covering the period of December 12, 2008 through December 11, 2009. During the effective dates of the 2008-2009 IHA, PRBO conducted seabird and pinniped research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore. PRBO recorded the following behaviors (
PRBO will submit an annual monitoring report for the 2010-2011 IHA (effective dates, February 19, 2010 through February 18, 2011) by May 19, 2011. Upon receipt, NMFS will post this annual report on the same Internet address.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.
As part of its 2011 application for an IHA, PRBO provided a proposed monitoring plan for assessing impacts to seals and sea lions from the research
The PRBO will submit a final monitoring report to the NMFS Director of the Office of Protected Resources no later than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), if it is issued. The final report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The final report will provide:
(i) A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all seabird and pinniped research activities.
(ii) Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals, observed throughout all monitoring activities.
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals that are known to have been exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the seabird and pinniped research activities.
(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the IHA and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
PRBO will report all injured and dead marine mammals (regardless of cause) to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report should include the species or description of the animal, the condition of the animal, location, time first found, observed behaviors (if alive) and photo or video if available.
In the unanticipated event that PRBO's activities cause any taking of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, if issued, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality, PRBO shall postpone the authorized activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources and shall submit an incident report to NMFS. The report must include the following information: Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; the name and type of vessel involved; the vessel's speed during the incident; description of the incident; water depth; environmental conditions (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
Only take by Level B harassment is anticipated and authorized as a result of the proposed seabird and pinniped research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore.
Based on PRBO's previous research experiences, with the same activities conducted in the proposed research area, and on marine mammal research activities in these areas, NMFS estimates that approximately 5,104 California sea lions, 526 harbor seals, 190 northern elephant seals, and 20 Steller sea lions could be potentially affected by Level B behavioral harassment over the course of the proposed IHA. NMFS calculated the take estimates by multiplying three components: (1) The maximum number of animals that could be present; (2) the maximum number of disturbances; and (3) the estimated number of days that an animal could be present in the proposed area. NMFS derived these estimates from the results of the 2008-2009 monitoring report and anecdotal information from PRBO scientists.
Estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected are based on consideration of the maximum number of marine mammals that could be disturbed by approximately 1,908 visits to SEFI, ANI, and PRNS during the course of the proposed activity. These incidental harassment numbers represent approximately two percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion, 1.5 percent of the California stock of Pacific harbor seal, 0.15 percent of the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal, and 0.04 percent of the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion. For each species, these numbers are small relative to the population size.
NMFS expects all of the potential takes to be Level B behavioral harassment only. Because of the required mitigation measures and the likelihood that some pinnipeds will avoid the area, no injury or mortality to pinnipeds is expected or requested.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “ * * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers:
(1) The number of anticipated mortalities;
(2) The number and nature of anticipated injuries;
(3) The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and
(4) The context in which the takes occur.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that four species of marine mammals could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. For each species, these numbers are small (each, less than or equal to two percent) relative to the population size.
NMFS does not anticipate takes by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality to occur as a result of PRBO's proposed activities, and none are authorized. These species may exhibit behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the proposed seabird and pinniped research activities to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual disturbances. However, NMFS anticipates only short-term behavioral disturbance to occur due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities, the availability of alternate areas for marine mammals to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual disturbances; and limited access of PRBO researchers to Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore during the pupping season. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, the proposed activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the impact of conducting proposed seabird and pinniped research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore in central California, July, 2011 through June, 2012, would result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B behavioral harassment only, and that the total taking from PRBO's proposed activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks; and that impacts to affected species or stocks of marine mammals would be mitigated to the lowest level practicable.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
The Steller sea lion, eastern U.S. stock is listed as threatened under the ESA and occurs in the research area. NMFS Headquarters' Office of Protected Resources, Permits, Conservation, and
To meet NMFS' NEPA requirements for the issuance of an IHA to PRBO, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2007 that was specific to seabird research activities on SEFI, WEI, ANI, and PRNS and evaluated the impacts on the human environment of NMFS' authorization of incidental Level B harassment resulting from seabird research in Central California. At that time, NMFS determined that conducting the seabird research would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and, therefore, it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to PRBO for this activity. In 2008, NMFS prepared a supplemental EA (SEA) titled “Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Conducting Seabird and Pinniped Research in Central California and Environmental Assessment for the Continuation of Scientific Research on Pinnipeds in California Under Scientific Research Permit 373-1868-00,” to address new available information regarding the effects of PRBO's seabird and pinniped research activities that may have cumulative impacts to the physical and biological environment. At that time, NMFS concluded that issuance of an IHA for the December 2008 through 2009 season would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and issued a FONSI for the 2008 SEA regarding PRBO's activities. In conjunction with this year's application, NMFS has again reviewed the 2007 EA and the 2008 SEA and determined that there are no new direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to the human and natural environment associated with the IHA requiring evaluation in a supplemental EA and NMFS, therefore, reaffirms the 2008 FONSI. A copy of the EA, SEA, and the NMFS FONSI for this activity is available upon request (see
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Intent.
The Department of the Army intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to analyze the environmental impacts resulting from adoption and implementation of a Real Property Master Plan (RPMP), including test areas and training activities at Yuma Proving Ground.
For questions concerning the RPMP PEIS, please contact Mr. Sergio Obregon, U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground, National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, IMWE-YMA-PWE, 301 C Street, Yuma, AZ 85365-9498. Written comments may be mailed to that address or e-mailed to
Mr. Chuck Wullenjohn, Yuma Proving Ground Public Affairs Office, at (928) 328-6189 Monday through Thursday from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Mountain Standard Time.
Yuma Proving Ground consists of approximately 840,000 acres of DoD-managed land in the Sonoran Desert in southwestern Arizona and occupies portions of Yuma and La Paz counties. The mission at Yuma Proving Ground is ensuring the readiness of U. S. forces and materiel to perform in hot arid conditions around the world. This requires rigorous testing of ground and aerial vehicles, weapons, munitions, sensors, and guidance systems and realistic training. The U.S. has been engaged in hostile conflicts in environments similar to those found at Yuma Proving Ground, resulting in a need for increased testing of existing and developing military equipment, vehicles, and munitions under these environmental conditions. To meet these needs, the U.S. Army intends to prepare a RPMP PEIS at Yuma Proving Ground to analyze potential impacts from new construction, changes in testing and training, and activities conducted under private industry partnerships. Renewable energy initiatives will also be discussed in the PEIS, but project-specific NEPA analysis will be required prior to implementing specific renewable energy initiatives.
Alternatives will consist of alternative siting locations for certain activities within Yuma Proving Ground and different magnitudes of implementation with regard to spatial extent of potential impacts and frequency and duration of specific events. The EIS will also analyze the No Action Alternative, under which no new construction would occur and there would be no changes in testing and training activities conducted at Yuma Proving Ground.
No changes are proposed to activities conducted at off-post areas in Arizona and California that are used for specific testing activities under conditions not found at Yuma Proving Ground. Therefore, these areas would not be considered in the development of alternatives for the RPMP PEIS.
All activities under consideration would be conducted within the boundaries of the installation. Resource areas that may be impacted include air quality, airspace, traffic, noise, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, utilities, land use, and solid and hazardous materials/waste. Impacts to these resources may occur as a result of converting existing land use to support military testing and training or from increasing the scope or magnitude of testing and training activities. The analysis will also consider the potential for cumulative environmental effects.
The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process to provide input on the proposed action and alternatives, which will be evaluated in the PEIS. After publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare the PEIS, the Army will schedule at least two public meetings to provide information about the proposed action
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, has received a permit application for a Department of the Army Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) from the Coastal Water Authority (SWG-2009-00188) for the proposed Coastal Water Authority's Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project located in eastern Liberty County with the 26.5-mile corridor extending southwestward from the Trinity River to a discharge point near the confluence of Luce Bayou with Lake Houston. The primary Federal involvement associated with the proposed action is the discharge or dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands, and the construction of structures that may affect navigable waters. Federal authorizations for the proposed project would constitute a “major federal action.” Based on the potential impacts, both individually and cumulatively, the Corps intends to prepare an Environmental Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act to render a final decision on the permit applications.
The Corps' decision will be to either issue, issue with modification or deny Department of the Army permits for the proposed action. The EIS will assess the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the interbasin conveyance, associated facilities, and appurtenances and is intended to be sufficient in scope to address Federal, State and local requirements, environmental issues concerning the proposed action, and permit reviews.
The scoping period will commence with the publication of this notice. The formal scoping period will end 60 days after the publication of this notice. Comments regarding issues relative to the proposed project should be received.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Mr. Jayson Hudson, (409) 766-3108.
The Galveston District intends to prepare a DEIS on the proposed Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project which is the proposed transfer of water from the Trinity River in Liberty County to Lake Houston in Harris County, TX. The Coastal Water Authority proposed this project and is the applicant for the Department of the Army permit (DA) SWG-2009-00188.
1.
a. A new water pumping station will be constructed on the Trinity River at Capers Ridge approximately 10 miles north of Dayton, TX.
b. Dual, 108-inch diameter force mains will be constructed extending from the Capers Ridge pump station approximately 3.5 miles to the west and southwest to outfall to the sedimentation settling basin.
c. An approximate 20-acre sedimentation settling and storage basin.
d. An approximate 23.5 mile clay-lined earthen canal with 4:1 side slopes within a 300-foot easement that would include access roads, berms, chain link perimeter fencing, flow control structures, and metering stations.
e. Box culverts at canal and roadway crossings and multiple bawl-ground siphons constructed to facilitate wildlife movement and maintain existing hydrology along the canal conveyance system.
f. An approximate 10-acre maintenance facility located approximately 6 miles north of Dayton, TX.
g. Discharge structure along the southeastern shoreline of Lake Houston.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent; withdrawal.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Baltimore and Norfolk Districts published a notice of intent (NOI) (74 FR 47927) for the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA study on September 18, 2009. That NOI announced that the Corps Baltimore and Norfolk Districts would prepare a single, integrated Native Oyster Restoration Master Plan (master plan) and programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for native oyster recovery in the entire Chesapeake Bay (inclusive of both Maryland and Virginia) and that the document would be tiered to the
Ms. Susan Conner, Norfolk District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1. The Baltimore District previously published a NOI (69 FR 68887) for the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA study on November 26, 2004. That NOI indicated that the Baltimore District would prepare a draft EIS for native oyster (
2. A third NOI was published on September 18, 2009 (74 FR 47927) to announce that the timing of the master plan/PEIS was delayed so that the document could be tiered to the
3. The master plan will be written in cooperation with the local sponsors, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
4. The Corps will conduct public meetings during the public review process for the draft master plan, which is scheduled for the fall of 2011, and will include interested parties throughout the development of the master plan through informational meetings, Web site postings, and other means.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. U.S. Patent Number 6,664,915 entitled “Identification Friend or Foe System Including Short Range UV Shield” issued on December 16, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 7,661,271 entitled “Integrated Electric Gas Turbine” issued on February 16, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 6,600,694 entitled “Digital Signal Processor Based Torpedo Counter-measure” issued on July 29, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 6,717,525 entitled “Tactical Vectoring Equipment (TVE)” issued on April 6, 2004; U.S. Patent Number 6,624,780 entitled “False Target Radar Image Generator for Countering Wideband and Imaging Radars” issued on September 11, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 7,725,595 entitled “Embedded Communications System and Method” issued on May 25, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 7,074,697 entitled “Doping-assisted Defect Control in Compound Semiconductors” issued on July 11, 2006; U.S. Patent Number 7,675,198 entitled “Inductive Pulse Forming Network for High-current, High-power applications” issued on March 9, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 7,627,003 entitled “Automatic Clock Synchronization and Distribution Circuit for Counter Clock Flow Pipelined Systems” issued on December 1, 2009; U.S. Patent Number 7,811,918 entitled “Electric Current Induced Liquid Metal Flow and Metallic Conformal Coating of Conductive Templates” issued on October 12, 2010; U.S. Patent Application Number 12/987,873 filed on January 20, 2011, Case Number 20090009 entitled “Data Compression Methods”; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 61/446,770 filed on February 25, 2011, Case Number 20110005 entitled “Near Lossless Data Compression Method Using Nonuniform Sampling”.
Requests for copies of the inventions should be directed to Danielle Kuska, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs Office, NPS Code 41, 699 Dyer Road, Bldg. HA, Room 222, Monterey, CA 93943, telephone 831-656-2099 or e-mail
Danielle Kuska, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs Office, NPS Code 41, 699 Dyer Road, Bldg. HA, Room 222, Monterey, CA 93943, telephone 831-656-2099. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 831-656-2038, e-mail:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will deliberate on the findings and proposed recommendations of the Navy Expeditionary Organizations and Capabilities Subcommittee study. The meeting will consist of discussions regarding the current and future capabilities and employment of Navy's expeditionary forces and role in future expeditionary operations.
The meeting will be held on June 9, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at CNA, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.
LCDR Don Rauch, CNO Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846, 703-681-4941.
Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for consideration by the CNO Executive Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below.
If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice then the statement, if it is to be considered by the Panel for this meeting, must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question.
The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the CNO Executive Panel Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the CNO Executive Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive Director, CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 24, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 or e-mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
U.S. Department of Education, President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Board).
Notice of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and agenda of the meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011.
Time: 9 a.m.-2 p.m.
The Board will meet in the Student Center on the campus of Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. Student Center Ballroom, The Student Center, 135 Marshall Avenue, Hampton, VA 23688, 757-757-5231.
John Silvanus Wilson, Jr., Executive Director, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20204;
The President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (the Board) is established by Executive Order 13532 (February 26, 2010). The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Board is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on all matters pertaining to strengthening the educational capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
The Board shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) Improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.
The Board will receive updates from the Chairman of the President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs and the Executive Director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs on their respective activities since the Board's last meeting, which was held on March 1, 2011. In addition, the Board will discuss federal support of HBCUs in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, the budget outlook for federal support in Fiscal Year 2012, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) policies affecting HBCUs and possible strategies to enable the Board to meet its duties under its charter.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
An opportunity for public comment is available on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, from 1:30 p.m.-2 p.m. Individuals who wish to provide comments will be allowed
Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202, Monday through Friday (excluding federal holidays) during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice establishes the dates for the upcoming meetings for the Department of Education's 10 Regional Advisory Committees (RACs). Notice of RAC meetings is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to participate.
Fran Walter, 202-205-9198 or at
The Regional Advisory Committees are established under section 206 of the Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, (20 U.S.C. 9605). The RACs are to advise the Secretary by (1) conducting an educational needs assessment of each region identified in section 174(b) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002; and (2) submitting reports for each region based on the regional assessments no later than four months after the committees are first convened.
The public may listen to the proceedings of the meetings via real-time webinar conferencing. Registration for each meeting will be open two weeks prior to the scheduled date of the meeting and close two hours before the meeting convenes. The public may register for the webinar meetings at
A summary of each meeting will be available online at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
E-T Global Energy, LLC (E-T Global) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before June 9, 2011.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) 202-586-5260.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On May 10, 2011, DOE received an application from E-T Global for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico for five years as a power marketer using existing international transmission facilities. E-T Global does not own any electric transmission facilities nor does it hold a franchised service area.
The electric energy that E-T Global proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities and other entities within the United States. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by E-T Global have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
In its application, E-T Global requested that DOE expedite the processing of this application in order for E-T Global to begin exports in compliance with the terms of its Master Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Commission Federal de Electricidad (CFE). Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene on the E-T Global application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket No. EA-381. An additional copy of each document is to be filed directly with Eduardo Padilla, Compliance Manager, E-T Global Energy, LLC, 505 North Big Spring, Suite 101, Midland, TX 79701. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than June 9, 2011.
Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or e-mail:
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 930 g of U.S.-origin low-enriched uranium contained in uranium molybdenum powder (183.4 g U-235) with an enrichment of 19.72%, from Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL) in Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, to SCK-CEN, Belgian Nuclear Research Center in Boeretang, Belgium. The material, which currently is located at AECL, will be transferred to SCK-CEN to be used for scientific research. The material originally was obtained by AECL.
In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
For the Department of Energy.
Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than June 9, 2011.
Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or e-mail:
This subsequent arrangement concerns the alteration in form or content of 28.276 kg (24.541 ekg) of U.S.-origin highly enriched uranium (HEU) (26.342 kg U-235) and 0.0048 g of plutonium contained in three HEU driver fuels that have been irradiated in the YAYOI nuclear research reactor at the University of Tokyo in Tokai-mura, Japan. The University of Tokyo will off-load three HEU driver fuels from the core of YAYOI to be cut and de-cladded in the reactor room into approximately 140 pieces, each cut piece weighing approximately 200 g. The HEU will be converted to uranium oxide and downblended to approximately 18% at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility, and then will be temporarily stored at the JAEA Tokai Plutonium Fuel Production Facility. The downblended HEU is planned for use as fuel for the JAEA experimental fast reactor JOYO. The alteration in form of the HEU will start in Japanese fiscal year 2012 and will continue for approximately one year.
In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement concerning the storage or disposition of irradiated fuel elements will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
For the Department of Energy.
Take notice that on May 10, 2011, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed an application in Docket No. CP11-478-000 pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon by sale or inter-corporate transfer to its affiliate, Boardwalk Field Services, LLC, certain gathering and transmission pipelines, including appurtenant and auxiliary facilities, and two compressor stations, located in south Texas, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, or by calling (713) 479-8033 (telephone), or (713) 479-1846 (fax),
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower near the towns of Luttrell and Blaine, in Union and Grainger Counties, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Henry Ecton, (202) 502-8768, or
j.
All documents should be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability 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
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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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.
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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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.
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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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.
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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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.
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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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.
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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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.
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 on May 13, 2011, Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC filed to update its address and to clarify definitions for Maximum Daily Withdrawal Quantity and Maximum Daily Injection Quantity in its Statement of Operating Conditions, as more fully described in the filing.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on May 17, 2011, American Midstream Onshore Pipelines, LLC (AMOP) filed to comply with an April 19, 2011 Director Letter which directed AMOP to file a revised Statement of Terms and Conditions for Transportation Services, as more fully described in the petition.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On May 19, 2011, the Commission issued an order that instituted an investigation in Docket No. EL11-41-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, to evaluate the justness and reasonableness of section 10.3.6.3 of the California Independent System Operator Corporation's tariff.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL11-41-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
On June 6, 2011, the Office of Energy Projects staff will hold a public scoping meeting to obtain input related to the environmental analysis of National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation's (National Fuel) Northern Access Project. We scheduled this meeting to provide landowners an opportunity to voice comments on the proposed project, and in response to the requests received during the April 11, 2011 environmental site review of the proposed East Aurora Compressor Station site and subsequent requests filed with the Commission. The environmental site review was noticed in our March 29, 2011,
The public scoping meeting is scheduled as follows:
June 6, 2011, at 7 p.m., Parkdale Elementary School, 141 Girard Avenue, East Aurora, NY 14052.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. The NOI and additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Sneedville, on Keaton Creek, in Hancock County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Ravenscroft, on Doe Creek, in White and Putnam Counties, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Sparta, on Wildcat Creek, in White County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On March 3, 2011, the Town of Edgartown, Massachusetts (Edgartown), filed an application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project to be located in Muskeget Channel, between the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, Dukes County and Nantucket County, Massachusetts. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Competing Applications
On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Bean Station, in Hawkins County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
The proposed pumped storage project would consist of the following: (1) A 70-foot-high, 7,500-foot-long earth embankment dam; (2) an upper reservoir with a surface area of 100 acres and an 7,100 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a 120-foot-high, 920-foot-long earth embankment dam creating; (4) a lower reservoir with a surface area of 220 acres and an 7,300 acre-foot storage capacity; (5) one 30-foot-diameter, 3,200-foot-long penstock; (6) a bifurcation to three penstocks each 16-foot-diameter, and 100-foot-long; (7) an underground powerhouse/pumping station containing three pump/generating units with a total generating capacity of 600 megawatts; (8) a 30-foot-diameter, 700-foot-long tailrace tunnel; (9) a 24-foot-diameter, 2,000-foot-long access tunnel; (10) a substation; (11) a 1.4-mile-long, 500 kV transmission line to an existing distribution line; and (12) a 6,300-foot-long access road. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 1,500,000 megawatt-hours (MWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on April 29, 2011, pursuant to section 358.1(d) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 358.1(d) (2010), Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) requests a waiver of part 358 of the Commission's Regulations, Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers (Standards of Conduct) adopted by the Commission in Order No. 717.
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.
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Ohio's request to revise certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective May 25, 2011.
Evi Huffer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On December 9, 2010, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a consolidated application for its eBusiness Center electronic document receiving system for revision/modification of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed Ohio EPA's request to revise its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Ohio's request for revision to its Part 403-General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution EPA-authorized programs for electronic reporting of Industrial and Publicly Owned Treatment Works reports under 40 CFR part 403 is being published in the
Ohio EPA was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Full Committee will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on June 20, 2011 and ending June 21, 2011. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The meeting will be held on Monday, June 20, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to noon on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at EPA. One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA, 1st Floor South Conference Room.
Ron Kendall, Field External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5561; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decisionmaking process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any Non Government Organization.
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
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0001. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
1. Progress on Issue Papers:
For Use by Statements, Expiration Dates; Supplemental Labeling.
Revision of PR Notice 87-1 (Chemigation).
2. Issues from Previous Meetings Updates and Discussion.
3. Fumigation Label review process.
4. Regional Report Summary, State Issues/New Issue Paper Introduction.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation.
Bed Bug Control Product Risk/Efficacy/Cleanup.
Drift Label Language Impacts.
Office of Civil Rights/Revision of Inspection Procedures.
5. SFIREG/USEPA Discussion.
Incorporating SLA Program Priorities and Resources into EPA.
Program priority setting.
6. Working Committee Reports.
Environmental Quality Issues (EQI) Working Committee Report.
Pesticide Operations and Management (POM) Working Committee Report.
7. Revision of State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Funding.
8. Revised State Label Issues Tracking System (SLITS) process.
9. Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials Update.
10. Association of American Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) Report.
11. Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) Report.
12. EPA/Office of Water—update on pesticide general permit.
This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.
Environmental protection.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
60-day notice of submission of information collection for approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking public comments concerning the information collection known as “Federal Home Loan Bank Directors,” which has been assigned control number 2590-0006 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on July 31, 2011.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before July 25, 2011.
Submit comments to FHFA using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, on the FHFA website at
Patricia L. Sweeney, Management Analyst, Division of Bank Regulation,
Section 7 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) vests the management of each Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) in its board of directors.
Under part 1261, the Banks determine the eligibility of nominees for member and independent directorships and administer the annual director election process. As part of this process, candidates for both types of directorship, including incumbents, are required to complete and return to the Bank a form that solicits information about the candidate's statutory eligibility to serve and, in the case of independent director candidates, about his or her qualifications for the directorship being sought.
FHFA estimates the total number of respondents is 295, which includes 160 prospective directors (100 member and 60 independent) and 135 incumbent directors (80 member and 55 independent). As explained below, FHFA estimates that the total annual hour burden for all respondents is 278 hours.
FHFA estimates the total annual average hour burden for all the prospective and incumbent member directors is 70 hours. This includes a total annual average of 100 prospective member directors, with 1 response per individual taking an average of 30 minutes (.5 hours) (100 individuals x .5 hours = 50 hours). It also includes a total annual average of 80 incumbent member directors, with 1 response per individual taking an average of 15 minutes (.25 hours) (80 individuals x .25 hours = 20 hours).
FHFA estimates the total annual average hour burden for all the prospective and incumbent independent directors is 208. This includes a total annual average of 60 prospective independent directors, with 1 response per individual taking an average of 3 hours (60 individuals x 3 hours = 180 hours). It also includes a total annual average of 55 incumbent independent directors, with 1 response per individual taking an average of 30 minutes (.5 hours) (55 individuals x .5 hours = 28 hours).
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for a license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF)—Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Notice is also hereby given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a license.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by e-mail at
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.
Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the following license is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 20, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 9, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President), 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning acquisition of helium.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before June 24, 2011.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium, by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “Information Collection 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium”, under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium”, on your attached document.
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20417. ATTN: Hada Flowers/IC 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium.
Ms. Deborah Lague, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA (202) 694-8149 or
The Helium Act (Pub. L. 86-777) (50 U.S.C. 167a,
The FAR requires that the Contractor provide to the Contracting Officer the following data within 10 days after the Contractor or subcontractor receives a delivery of helium from a Federal helium supplier; (i) The name of the supplier; (ii) The amount of helium purchased; (iii) The delivery date(s); and (iv) The location where the helium was used. Such information will facilitate enforcement of the requirements of the Helium Act and the contractual provisions requiring the use of Government helium by agency contractors.
The information is used in administration of certain Federal contracts to ensure contractor compliance with contract clauses. Without the information, the required use of Government helium cannot be monitored and enforced effectively.
One comment was received in regards to this collection. The commenter indicated that the FAR was misquoted. The team concurs. The FAR requires that the contractor provide helium purchase information 10 days after delivery from a federal helium supplier, not for the contractor to forecast what they are going to purchase. No changes to the FAR are necessary.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection 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 functions; (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.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the
OIG may request to see documentation kept pursuant to the safe harbor in order to determine compliance with the terms of the safe harbor and the fraud and abuse laws. Compliance with the safe harbor is voluntary, and no party is ever required to comply with the safe harbor.
The safe harbor does not entail a routine and continuous affirmative collection of data form the regulated community. However, health centers that choose to avail themselves of the safe harbor must have initial documentation and a re-evaluation of the arrangement at least annually. The respondents are businesses and/or other private sector for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection 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 functions; (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.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Comparative Effectiveness Research-Continuing Education.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by June 24, 2011.
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by e-mail at
Comparative Effectiveness Research-Continuing Education
Previous dissemination efforts in health care research and evidence through comparative effectiveness funded by the Federal Government have largely been focused in academic settings, rather than among physicians and clinicians in health care delivery settings. This project implements and evaluates methods that extend beyond the academic setting to engage the target audiences in the health care environment where decisions are typically made.
Most clinicians are required to complete continuing medical education (CME) accepted by accrediting organizations recognized by State medical boards. Over sixty boards require anywhere from 12 CME credits to 50 CME credits per year for a clinician to retain their State licensure. (State Medical Licensure Requirements and Statistics, 2010,
Dissemination of clinical and research findings to clinicians varies in approach, methods and by target audience. Highly technical and scientific publications are peer reviewed and serve to validate the methods, calculations, analysis and conclusions of studies and research. However, it is nearly impossible to discern whether the manuscript was read, its effect on the reader, and the likelihood that the reader will utilize the information.
Accredited education is widely accepted as a method for dissemination of research findings and is provided in various ways, including online, on site, and through audio and video presentations. To earn credit for participation, clinicians must provide contact information, allowing the possibility of follow-up data collections regarding behaviors, attitudes and performance information about the participant. AHRQ has also provided accredited education as a method to disseminate CER findings, and with this project, has reaffirmed the value of CME in dissemination of CER findings and expanded the commitment to provide accredited education for multiple health care disciplines.
The goal of this project is to enhance awareness of comparative effectiveness research among clinicians and measure the value and impact of these efforts.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, PRIME Education, Inc., pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to: the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services; quality measurement and improvement; and clinical practice. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1),(2) and (4).
1. Provide continuing medical education (CME) or continuing education units (CE/CEU) through the appropriate accrediting organizations by providing 15 multimedia online continuing education modules per year for 3 years, on specific comparative effectiveness research reports and provide quantitative and qualitative metrics about usage of these programs by physicians, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, medical assistants, allied health professionals, and other clinicians. This activity is designed to raise awareness of and utility of comparative effectiveness research by providing free and easy access to clinician guides and consumer guides for clinicians and their patients/families to assist in making informed decisions about health care.
2. CME/CE/CEU registration data is provided by the health care professional when he or she logs on and registers for a course. The health care professional would key in their name, e-mail address, address (selecting either their home or business address), telephone number, type of discipline, and their practice setting. This data is collected to ensure that the health care professional receives CME/CE/CEU credit for the courses that he or she takes and will be used to implement the AHRQ Online Continuing Education Participant Evaluation described below.
3. AHRQ Online Continuing Education Participant Evaluation to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the CME/CE/CEU modules at 60 days, 6 months and 1 year after completion of the module. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the clinicians' confidence level in applying comparative effectiveness research, their understanding of the research, how valuable the research is to the clinician and their intent to change their practice based on this research. Evaluation questions have been developed based upon established conceptual frameworks and principles of adult learning.
Data collected will be used to assess the utility and effectiveness of the educational module in increasing awareness and utility of information provided in comparative effectiveness research. Data will provide useful quantitative and qualitative metrics which AHRQ can use to measure the outcomes of the project. Moreover, these metrics will enable AHRQ to identify new potential barriers that may thwart the outcome-lending important information regarding future educational needs.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this research. The AHRQ Online Continuing Education Participant Evaluation will be completed at 3 different points in time after completion of the CME/CE/CEU education module. The CME/CE/CEU registration data is collected for an estimated 1,500 health care professionals and takes approximately 5 minutes. The same estimated 1,500 health care professionals will complete the evaluation 3 times each year, which takes about 3 minutes to complete. The total annual burden is estimated to be 350 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden to respondents, based on their time to participate in surveys for each CME/CE/CEU module. The annual cost burden is estimated to be $16,290.]
Exhibit 3 shows the total and annualized cost for the 45 CME/CE/CEU modules (15 per year for 3 years). The total cost is estimated to be $3,963,150.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
A notice of draft document for public comment was published in the
On page 28789, second column: Under the heading “Summary” the Web site has been changed to
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In the pilot and field tests, the new Q-CCIIT observation measure will include observing a small group activity structured with a common task and asking follow-up observation questions. Caregivers observed will also complete a background questionnaire. Focus groups to obtain stakeholder input on caregiver-child interactions will be conducted separately with parents, caregivers, and training and technical assistance providers. Focus group participants will also complete a demographic questionnaire. Parents of children served by caregivers will complete a questionnaire on their child's competencies related to cognitive, language/communication, and social-emotional development. Parents will complete this questionnaire, which will also include family and child characteristics, once in the pilot test and twice in the field test, at the start of the field test and 6 months later to assess growth.
The purpose of this data collection is to support the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start program (Pub. L. 110-134), which calls for periodic assessments of Head Start's quality and effectiveness.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project
Information is collected about children's cognitive, social, emotional, behavioral, and adaptive functioning, as well as family and community factors that are likely to influence their functioning. Family service needs and service utilization also are addressed in the data collection.
Selection of the current NSCAW sample and baseline data collection began in 2007 with a final sample size of 5,873 children. The proposed data collection will allow for follow-up of this sample 36 months post-baseline, will follow the same format as that used in the baseline round and the 18-month follow-up, and will employ, with only modest revisions, the same instruments that were used in the previous rounds. Data from NSCAW are made available to the research community through licensing arrangements from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect at Cornell University.
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF, HHS.
Funding Opportunity Announcements for the Basic Center Program (BCP) and Street Outreach Program (SOP) are now available for application.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (Pub. L. 110-378), 42 U.S.C. sections 5701-5752.
As required under 45 CFR 1351.17, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) announces the publication of the following Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) to the ACF Funding Opportunities Web site (
Additional information and electronic submission of applications are available at:
Curtis O. Porter, Director, Division of Youth Services, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave., SW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024.
Office of Community Services (OCS), ACF, DHHS.
Announcement of the award of a replacement grant from the Office of Community Services to Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation, Arcata, CA, under the Strengthening Communities Fund program.
Section 1110 of the Social Security Act governing Social Services Research and Demonstration activities; Title VIII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Public Law 111-5. (
The Administration of Children and Family (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS), announces the award of a replacement grant under the Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) for the State, Local, and Tribal Government Capacity Building Program grant to Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation, Arcata, CA. Humboldt State is an eligible designate of the Governor's Office on Economic Development in California.
California Volunteers, Inc., Sacramento CA was originally awarded an FY 2009 grant as the result of a competition under the SCF program. In October 2010, California Volunteers submitted a letter relinquishing their grant.
Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation submitted their letter along with their grant application requesting approval as the replacement grantee. OCS reviewed the application from Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation and found that the proposed project is significantly similar to the one initially chosen for the award. ACF, OCS now announces that Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation has been awarded the grant in the amount of $233,866 as the permanent successor grantee for the remainder of the project period, which will end on September 29, 2011.
Under the award, Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation will continue to provide coordinated, timely capacity-building outreach, training and technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations in California.
Thom Campbell, Program Manager, Office of Community Services, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20047.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Color Additive Certification Requests and Recordkeeping” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Denver Presley, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Experimental Study of Nutrition Facts Label Formats” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Denver Presley, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.
In the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of request for comments.
The United States Coast Guard is soliciting public comment on the availability of technology to meet certain provisions of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010(CVSSA), specifically related to video recording and overboard detection technologies. Public comment is necessary in order to assist the Coast Guard with assessing which requirements should be addressed in guidance and regulations implementing the CVSSA.
Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2011-0357 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
If you have questions on this notice, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Latasha Pennant, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-5211), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, by telephone at 202-372-1358, or by e-mail at
We encourage you to participate by submitting comments. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
On July 27, 2010, Congress enacted the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act of 2010 (CVSSA) (Pub. L. 111-207). The CVSSA amended Title 46 U.S.C. Chapter 35 by adding sections 3507 (Passenger vessel security and safety requirements) and 3508 (Crime scene preservation training for passenger vessel crewmembers). The CVSSA prescribes security and safety requirements for passenger vessels with overnight accommodations for more than 250 passengers, not engaged in a coastwise voyage and that embarks and disembarks passengers in the United States. 46 U.S.C. 3507(k). Some of the safety and security concerns addressed in the Act include: Updated ship design; providing public access to information regarding crime aboard cruise ships; improved precautions, response, medical care and support for victims of sexual assault; and preservation of evidence necessary to prosecute criminals.
The Coast Guard intends to promulgate regulations and/or policy when appropriate to comply with, or clarify as needed, the requirements set forth in the CVSSA. This Notice is soliciting comments from the public on two mandates of the CVSSA: Overboard detection technology and video surveillance. Specifically, 46 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D) mandates the cruise vessel shall integrate technology that can be used for capturing images of passengers or detecting passengers who have fallen overboard, to the extent that such technology is available. Under 46 U.S.C. 3507(b) the cruise vessel owner shall maintain a video surveillance system to assist in documenting crimes that occur on the vessel, and provide law enforcement officials in the course and scope of an investigation a copy of the video records if needed.
(1) If applicable, what is your position in the maritime community? (Please be as specific as possible,
(2) If you work in the maritime community, do you:
a. Use equipment to detect persons falling overboard? If yes, what is the equipment, and how reliable is the equipment?
b. What alternative source(s) for detecting persons falling overboard would you recommend? How would you rate the alternative source(s) in terms of: (A) User cost and (B) reliability and usefulness of the information?
(3) Do industry best practices for placement and retention of video recording devices exist? If yes, please specify what they are and how effective they have been in helping law enforcement officials prosecute offenders.
Comments regarding these provisions and any other pertinent matters brought to our attention during the comment period will be taken into account in our future actions regarding the issues raised by these questions. We encourage you to provide your comments as we move forward with implementing the provisions of the CVSSA.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of the emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3322-EM), dated May 6, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May 6, 2011.
The parishes of Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Catahoula, Concordia, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, Iberia, Iberville, La Salle, Madison, Pointe Coupee, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Tensas, Terrebonne, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana for emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-3320-EM), dated May 4, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May 4, 2011.
The counties of Adams, Bolivar, Claiborne, Coahoma, DeSoto, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jefferson, Sharkey, Tunica, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson, and Yazoo for emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated April 28, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 28, 2011.
Cherokee, Choctaw, Colbert, Etowah, Fayette, Hale, Jefferson, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Marengo, Morgan, St. Clair, Sumter, Talladega, and Tallapoosa Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G], (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1960-DR), dated March 17, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 17, 2011.
Grundy, Livingston, McLean, Sangamon, and Stephenson Counties for Public Assistance, including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the 2010 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing grants program. This announcement contains the names of the awardees and the amounts of the awards made available by HUD.
Karen E. Daly, Director, Office of Policy Development and Coordination, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone (202) 402-5552 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877-8339. For general information on this and other HUD programs, call Community Connections at (800) 998-9999 or visit the HUD Web site at
HUD's Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing program is authorized by Section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-120, 107 Stat. 1148, 42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as amended, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117). The Section 4 Capacity Building program provides grants to national community development intermediaries to enhance the capacity and ability of community development corporations and community housing development organizations to carry out community development and affordable housing activities that benefit low-income families and persons. Capacity Building funds support activities such as training, education, support, loans, grants, and development assistance.
The Fiscal Year 2010 competition was announced on
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and the amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year reviews for 53 species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We conduct these reviews to ensure that our classification of each species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as threatened or endangered is accurate. A 5-year review assesses the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. We are requesting any information that has become available since our original listing of each of these species. Based on review results, we will determine whether we should change the listing status of any of these species. In this notice, we also announce 5-year reviews that were completed for 32 species in California and Nevada between April 1, 2010, and March 16, 2011.
To ensure consideration, please send your written information by July 25, 2011.
For how and where to send comments or information, see “VIII., Contacts.”
For species-specific information, contact the appropriate person listed under VIII., Contacts.” For contact information about completed 5-year reviews, see ” IX., Completed 5-Year Reviews.” Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8337 for TTY assistance.
Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
In classifying, we use the following definitions, from 50 CFR 424.02:
(A)
(B)
(C)
We must support delisting by the best scientific and commercial data available, and only consider delisting if data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons (50 CFR 424.11(d)):
(A) The species is considered extinct;
(B) The species is considered to be recovered; or
(C) The original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of data, were in error.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
This notice announces our active 5-year status reviews of the species in Table 1.
We consider all new information available at the time we conduct a 5-year status review. We consider the best scientific and commercial data that has become available since our current listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(D) Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “IV., How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened?”); and
(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
We specifically request information regarding data from any systematic surveys, as well as any studies or analysis of data that may show population size or trends; information pertaining to the biology or ecology of these species; information regarding the effects of current land management on population distribution and abundance; information on the current condition of habitat; and recent information regarding conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species. Additionally, we specifically request information regarding the current distribution of populations and
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we must base our assessment of these factors solely on the best scientific and commercial data available.
For each species under review, if we find new information that indicates a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following:
(A) Reclassify the species from threatened to endangered (uplist);
(B) Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened (downlist); or
(C) Remove the species from the List (delist).
If we determine that a change in classification is not warranted, then the species remains on the List under its current status.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “III., What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
Submit your comments and materials to the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office listed under “VIII., Contacts.”
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.
Send your comments and information on the following species, as well as requests for information, to the corresponding contacts/addresses. You may view information we receive in response to this notice, as well as other documentation in our files, at the following locations by appointment, during normal business hours.
For the Behren's silverspot butterfly, Howell's spineflower, Kneeland prairie pennycress, lotis blue butterfly, and western snowy plover, send information to Field Supervisor,
For the ash-grey paintbrush, Bear Valley sandwort, California taraxacum, Catalina Island mountain mahogany, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, El Segundo blue butterfly, Laguna Mountains skipper, Orcutt's spineflower, Palos Verdes blue butterfly, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, and Southern Mountain wild buckwheat, send information to Field Supervisor,
For the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, send information to Field Supervisor,
For the Amargosa niterwort and Ash Meadows gumplant, send information to State Supervisor,
For the Antioch Dunes evening primrose, California freshwater shrimp, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander (Central), Chinese Camp brodiaea, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Contra Costa wallflower, Giant garter snake, Hartweg's golden sunburst, Keck's checkermallow, Kern primrose sphinx moth, Lange's metalmark butterfly, longhorn fairy shrimp, Mariposa pussypaws, Red Hills vervain, San Francisco garter snake, San Joaquin adobe sunburst, showy indian clover, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, send information to Field Supervisor,
For the Ben Lomond spineflower, Chorro Creek bog thistle, Gowen cypress, Hoffmann's rock-cress, Monterey gilia, Morro manzanita, Morro shoulderband snail, Santa Barbara Island liveforever, Santa Cruz Island bush-mallow, Santa Rosa Island manzanita, Smith's blue butterfly, and soft-leaved paintbrush, send information to Field Supervisor,
For the Yreka phlox, send information to Field Supervisor,
All electronic information must be submitted in Text format or Rich Text format. Include the following identifier in the subject line of the e-mail: Information on 5-year review for [NAME OF SPECIES], and include your name and return address in the body of your message.
We also take this opportunity to inform the public of 5-year reviews that we completed between April 1, 2010, and March 16, 2011, for 31 species in California and Nevada (Table 2). In addition, we include in Table 2 the desert pupfish for which a review was completed in which we concurred. Reviews for these 32 species can be found at
We publish this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (DCCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex) for public review and comment. The refuge complex is made up of Ankeny, Baskett Slough, and William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuges (refuges), located in Benton, Linn, Marion, and Polk Counties, Oregon. In the DCCP and EA, we describe and evaluate alternatives, including our preferred alternative, for managing the refuge complex for the 15 years following approval of the final CCP.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by June 24, 2011.
You may submit comments, requests for more information, or requests for copies of the DCCP/EA, by any of the following methods:
Doug Spencer, Project Leader, (541) 757-7236.
The complex includes three refuges: William L. Finley, Baskett Slough, and Ankeny. Together, the three refuges encompass approximately 11,110 acres in western Oregon. Habitats on the refuges include seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent wetlands; wet prairies, upland prairie/oak savannas, oak woodlands, mixed deciduous-coniferous forests, riparian, and riverine and stream habitats. Agricultural lands, the majority managed as grass fields, are also present on the refuges. The refuges were established under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds . . . to conserve and protect migratory birds . . . and to restore or develop adequate wildlife habitat” with emphasis on protecting dusky Canada geese. In the last four decades, these refuges have provided not only an important wintering grounds for the dusky and thousands of other wintering geese and ducks—but have been recognized more recently as increasingly important areas for conservation of the remaining fragments of the native Valley habitats and biota. The refuges support key populations of federally listed species, including Oregon chub, Fender's blue butterfly, Bradshaw's desert-parsley, Kincaid's lupine, Nelson's checker-
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
We began public outreach by publishing a Notice of Intent in the
We identified and evaluated three alternatives for managing the refuges, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Brief descriptions of the alternatives follow:
Under Alternative 1, the refuges would continue to maintain cultivated grass fields under a cooperative farming program to provide forage for wintering Canada geese. Other goose management activities, such as managing wetland habitats and providing sanctuary, would continue. The refuges would also continue to manage and enhance native habitats but no further habitat restoration work would occur. Endangered species management would continue. Existing public uses would continue with the current facilities and programs in place. No new public use facilities would be developed. The current areas closed to public access would remain in effect to provide sanctuary during the wintering waterfowl season. The refuges would not pursue any additional land protection measures under the no change alternative.
Under Alternative 2, an emphasis on providing habitat for wintering geese would remain. Forage would continue to be provided primarily via cooperative farming. The refuges would pursue measures to help retain the services of cooperative farmers, such as providing enhanced irrigation capabilities; providing additional lure crops such as corn or other grains; the refuges taking over farming on certain high goose use fields; the Service offsetting a portion of the costs to cooperative farmers,
Management and enhancement would continue in remnant native habitats and recently restored areas. In addition, approximately 479 additional acres on the three refuges would be restored to wetland, wet prairie, riparian, or upland prairie/oak savannah habitats over the next 15 years.
Threatened and endangered species management would continue to be a priority, guided by recovery plans where applicable. Existing populations of several threatened and endangered species would be strengthened, and several new populations would be established on the refuges.
Wildlife observation and interpretation would continue to be emphasized as the cornerstone of the public use program. Several new trails and observation facilities would be added. Additional interpretive signs and materials, including on-line materials, would be developed. Major special events would occur at a frequency of about 3-4 per year, and monthly weekend interpretive programs would be developed.
Environmental education efforts would be expanded with an objective of reaching more students and schools, particularly at William L. Finley Refuge. Outdoor class shelters would be added. Funding would be sought to construct an Environmental Education Center, including indoor classroom facilities and a small exhibit area.
A new option to hunt antlerless deer would be added. In addition, new upland locations would be available for hunting during a portion of the shotgun season; this will require closure of two hiking trails for a week in November. The shotgun season would be shortened and shifted to later in the State season. A youth waterfowl hunt and a September goose hunt would be provided at Baskett Slough Refuge. Fishing would be promoted at the Willamette River by providing a canoe launch at Snag Boat Bend. The current area closed to public access would remain in effect to provide sanctuary during the wintering waterfowl season.
Together with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the refuges would develop an elk management plan after completion of the CCP. The refuges would continue to expand conservation partnerships, volunteer programs, and outreach to local communities. Proactive cultural resource management would occur by repairing/maintaining the historic structures on William L. Finley Refuge and by adding associated interpretive facilities.
This alternative also proposes protection, conservation, and management of additional lands within the Willamette Valley that could contribute to the refuges' purposes and goals by providing wintering habitat and forage for Canada geese; providing protection, enhancement, and restoration of native habitats and rare Willamette Valley species; and providing opportunity for additional wildlife-dependent public use. The refuges would undertake a subsequent land protection planning process to identify specific tracts of lands for these purposes.
This alternative involves a major shift in management for wintering Canada geese. Forage would be provided either through contract farming (paying farmers to grow crops on the refuges) and/or force account farming (refuge staff doing the farming). The refuges would only farm fields that have been
This alternative would create the opportunity to restore approximately 1,436 acres of cropland to native habitat since the amount of farmland would be reduced. However, the fields to be restored would likely lie fallow and could become weedy while awaiting staff time and funding for restoration.
Wildlife observation and interpretation would continue to be emphasized as the cornerstone of the public use program, but this alternative does little to expand these programs further. Interpretive signs would be developed or updated for existing facilities where needed, but major new developments and new interpretive methods would generally not occur. One or two special events would be held each year. The current area closed to public access on all three refuges would remain in effect to provide sanctuary during the wintering waterfowl season.
Deer hunting, threatened and endangered species management, environmental education, fishing, elk management, cultural resources, subsequent land protection planning, and conservation partnership activity would occur as under Alternative 2.
In addition to the information in
• Corvallis-Benton County Public Library, 645 NW. Monroe Avenue, Corvallis, OR 97330, 541-766-6926.
• Albany Public Library, 2450 14th Avenue SE., Albany, OR 97231, 541-917-7580.
• Dallas Public Library, 950 Main Street, Dallas, OR 97338, 503-623-2633.
• Jefferson Public Library, 128 South Main Street, Jefferson, OR 97352, 541-327-3826.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the final CCP and decision document.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may become publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your identifying information from the public, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts of several alternatives relating to the proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act Permit to Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm II LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm III LLC, and Fowler Ridge Wind Farm IV LLC (Applicant) for incidental take of the Indiana bat (
The public scoping period begins with publication of this notice in the
You may submit comments by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to Mr. Scott Pruitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 621 South Walker St., Bloomington, Indiana, 47403;
Mr. Scott Pruitt at (812) 334-4261. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8337 for TTY assistance.
We publish this notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Service requests data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. These comments will be considered in the development of a draft EIS, in the development of a draft HCP by the applicant, and in the determination of whether to issue an ITP. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological information concerning the Indiana bat;
(2) Relevant data concerning wind power and bat interactions;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the Indiana bat;
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the Indiana bat;
(5) Any information identified in the aforementioned as it relates to other bat
(6) The presence of archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
(7) Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed development and permit action.
You may submit your comments and materials considering this notice by one of the methods listed in the
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the NEPA document will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Indiana Field Office (see
Section 9 of the Act prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered under section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1538, 1533, respectively). The Act's implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Under section 3 of the Act, the term “take” means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 CFR part 1521). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).
Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires an applicant for an incidental take permit to prepare an HCP that describes:
(1) The impact that will likely result from such taking;
(2) the steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps;
(3) the alternative actions to such taking that the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and
(4) the other measures that the Secretary may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A)).
Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to issue an incidental take permit to an applicant when it determines that:
(1) The taking will be incidental;
(2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;
(3) the applicant has ensured that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;
(4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(5) the measures, if any, the Secretary may require as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan will be met (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)).
Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.
The Indiana bat was added to the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). It is currently listed as an endangered species under the Act. The population decline of this species is attributed to habitat loss and degradation of both winter hibernation habitat and summer habitat, human disturbance during hibernation, and possibly pesticides. An additional and emerging threat to Indiana bats is White-Nose Syndrome (WNS). WNS is associated with a recently discovered fungus (
Winter habitat for the Indiana bat includes caves and mines that support high humidity and cool but stable temperatures. In the summer, Indiana bats often roost under loose bark of dead or dying trees. During summer, males roost alone or in small groups while females and their offspring roost in larger groups of up to 100 or more. Indiana bats forage for insects in and along the edges of forested areas and wooded stream corridors. Maternity colonies of Indiana bats occur throughout Indiana. FRWF is located approximately 100 miles from the nearest known hibernaculum, and it is unlikely that Benton or surrounding counties contain Indiana bat hibernacula.
The proposed action is issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) for the Indiana bat during operation of Phases I, II, III, and IV of the Applicant's FRWF. The proposed HCP, which must meet the requirements in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, would be developed and implemented by the applicant, and will include measures necessary to minimize and mitigate impacts to the Indiana bat and its habitat to the maximum extent practicable. The HCP will present the Applicant's plan to modify operations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to endangered species that are present or migrating through the action area.
The Applicant for the ITP is developing and operating a wind power project in Benton County, Indiana. The area under lease for the FRWF is approximately 54,880 acres (ac) (22,209 hectares (ha)) within portions of Richland, Parish Grove, Center, Pine, Hickory Grove, Grant and Oak Grove Townships. The wind power project includes the operation of 355 existing wind turbine generators during the first three phases of the project, and construction and operation of up to 93 additional turbines at Phase IV of the project, for a total of up to 448 wind turbines. The project would also include all associated collector lines, access roads, utility lines, substations, operation and maintenance facility buildings, and temporary staging areas and concrete batch plants, if applicable. Up to five different models of wind turbines may be in use at various times during the four phases of FRWF. The wind turbine hub height at Phases I, II, and III is 263 feet (ft) (80 meters (m)), with the rotor diameter varying from 253 ft (77 m) to 315 ft (96 m), depending on the type of turbine. Approximate total height at the rotor apex at Phases I, II, and III varies from 389 ft (118.5 m)
The project is located in a rural setting, with the landscape primarily composed of agricultural properties. Of the roughly 72,953 ac (29,523 ha) within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of turbine locations, row crops comprise about 93 percent of the land use for the study area. After tilled agriculture, the next most common land uses within the FRWF are developed areas (e.g., houses and buildings), which comprise 5.0 percent of the total, and pastures/hayfields, which comprise 1.4 percent of the total. There are 22.8 ac (9.2 ha) of grasslands, which compose less than 0.1 percent of the study area. Grasslands in the study area are limited primarily to strips along drainages, railroad rights-of-way (ROW), and ROWs along county and State roads. Trees in the study area occur at homesteads, along some of the drainages and fencerows, and within some small, isolated woodlots. Forested areas are rare within the study area, based on 2001 data, and the 249.3 ac (100.8 ha) of forest comprise 0.5 percent of the total area. Small amounts of barren ground, open water, and woody wetlands are also present.
Despite the relatively small acreage of land to be affected by the project, impacts to wildlife, particularly birds and bats, are anticipated. Minimization for potential impacts to Indiana bats will include a turbine operational management adjustment program developed based on the results of post-construction studies conducted at Phases I, II, and III of the project.
Any turbine operational management adjustment program is likely to contain various measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Indiana bats, including the impact of lethal take. Various methods that may be considered include, but are not limited to: Protection of roost trees and surrounding habitat, set-back distances from known roost trees, mapping and avoidance of foraging areas, protection and enhancement of Indiana bat habitat outside the project area, various operational adjustments for turbines during prime activity or migration periods, and post-construction monitoring for fatalities.
In addition to the proposed action, there is one additional action alternative that is currently under consideration related to the proposed issuance of an ITP to the Applicant for activities associated with operation of the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. These alternatives, and possibly additional alternatives, will be considered in the draft EIS, along with the potential impacts associated with each alternative. Each action alternative analyzed in the draft EIS will be compared to the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative represents estimated future conditions to which the proposed action can be compared.
Under the No Action Alternative, an ITP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would not be issued for the existing phases or the future Phase IV of the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. The existing phases of the project would continue to fully operate, and Phase IV would fully operate once construction is complete. Under the No Action Alternative, the applicant would not have coverage for an incidental take of the Indiana bat and would be at risk of violation of Section 9 of the Act. In addition, no HCP would be produced; therefore, the Indiana bat would not have the protections afforded to it through development and implementation of an HCP. The proposed project purpose would not be met under the No Action Alternative.
Under the Maximally Restricted Operations Alternative, an ITP would be issued; Phases I, II and III would continue to operate; and Phase IV would be constructed as described under Proposed Action—i.e., full build-out of up to 448 turbines. Minimization for potential impacts to Indiana bats would include shutting down turbines at night during the period from April 1 through October 31, the active period for Indiana bats. This minimization would occur during all four phases of the project, every year the FRWF is in operation.
The Service will conduct an environmental review to analyze various alternatives for implementing the proposed action and the associated impacts of each. The draft EIS will be the basis for the impact evaluation for Indiana bats and the range of alternatives to be addressed. The draft EIS is expected to provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, as well as the effects of the alternatives on other resources such as vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology and soils, air quality, water resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation, water use, local economy, and environmental justice. Following completion of the environmental review, the Service will publish a notice of availability and a request for comments on the draft EIS and the Applicant's permit application, which will include the draft HCP. The draft EIS and draft HCP are expected to be completed and available to the public in late 2011.
This notice is being furnished as provided for by NEPA, the NEPA regulations, and the Act. The intent of the notice is to obtain suggestions and additional information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be considered. Comments and participation in this scoping process are solicited.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. Both laws
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before June 24, 2011. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or e-mail
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 10(a)(1)(A), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests renewal of the permit to import biological samples from wild Verreaux's sifaka (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests renewal of the permit to take and import West Indian manatees (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the plat of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management and is necessary for the management of these lands. The lands surveyed are:
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of Lot No. 72, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 15, Township 52 North, Range 93 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 834, was accepted May 19, 2011.
Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
June 21-22, 2011. On June 21, 2011, the Twin Falls District RAC members will meet at the Idaho Commerce and Labor Building located at 420 Falls Avenue, Twin Falls, Idaho. The meeting will begin at 8:15 a.m. and end no later than 10:30 a.m. The public comment period for the RAC meeting will take place 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. Following this meeting, the RAC will tour the area for the proposed China Mountain Wind Project. On June 22, 2011, RAC members will meet at the BLM Guard Station at 2295 E. 1500 N., Rogerson, Idaho at 10:30 a.m. to discuss their recommendations for the proposed China Mountain Wind Project. This meeting will end no later than 4:30 p.m.
Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208) 736-2352.
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the June 21st and 22nd meeting and tour, there will be information shared about the proposed Ketchum Land Exchange as well as the China Mountain Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
More information is available at
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until July 25, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to e-mail them to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E-808, Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until July 25, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E-808, Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The emergency proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days for public comment until July 25, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Ashley Hoornstra, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street, NE., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., 2E-808, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that on May 20, 2011, a proposed Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) in
The Agreement provides as follows with respect to claims for costs for response actions that were taken, and claims for penalties for civil violations of law that occurred, prior to August 12, 2010 (the “Petition Date”): With respect to USCG's claims under Section 1002(a)(b)(1) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. 2702(a)(b)(1), related to costs for cleanup actions that were taken prior to the Petition Date at the Debtors' former petroleum distribution terminal located in Bayamón, Puerto Rico (the “Facility”), the United States, on behalf of USCG, will have an allowed general unsecured claim in the amount of $5,776,301; with respect to EPA's claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9707(a), related to costs for cleanup actions that were taken prior to the Petition Date at the Facility, the United States, on behalf of EPA, will have an allowed general unsecured claim of $1,013,794; with respect to EPA's claims under Section 311(b)(7)(A) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A), for civil penalties for violations that occurred prior to the Petition Date related to oil discharges resulting from the October 23, 2009 explosion at the Facility and its aftermath, the United States, on behalf of EPA, will have an allowed general unsecured claim of $8,000,000; with respect to EPA's claims under Section 311(b)(7)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(B), for civil penalties for violations of law occurring prior to the Petition Date related to the failure of certain Debtors to comply with an Order issued by EPA under the CWA on February 19, 2010 (“CWA Order”), the United States, on behalf of EPA, will have an allowed general unsecured claim of $3,557,385; and with respect to EPA's claim under Section 9006(d)(2) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e(d)(2), for civil penalties for violations of Underground Storage Tank Regulations occurring prior to the Petition Date at certain of the gasoline service stations owned or operated by the Debtors, the United States, on behalf of EPA, will have an allowed general unsecured claim of $377,650.
The Agreement provides as follows with respect to costs for removal or response actions that were taken, and claims for penalties for violations of law that occurred, during the period of time after the Petition Date: with respect to USCG's demand under Section 1002(a)(b)(1) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. 2702(a)(b)(1), related to removal costs at the Facility after the Petition Date, the United States, on behalf of USCG, will have an allowed administrative expense claim of $4,074,164; with respect to EPA's demand under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9707(a), related to response costs at the Facility after the Petition Date, the United States, on behalf of EPA, will have an allowed administrative expense claim of $2,625,836; with respect to EPA's demand under Section 311(b)(7)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(B), for civil penalties for the failure of certain Debtors to comply with the CWA Order during the period of time after the Petition Date, the United States, on behalf of EPA, will have an allowed administrative expense claim of $1,404,241; and with respect to EPA's demand under Section 9006(d)(2) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e(d)(2), for civil
Under the Agreement, USCG covenants not to file a civil action or to take any administrative or other civil action against the Debtors to recover its cleanup costs with respect to the Facility pursuant to Section 1002(a) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. 2702(a). EPA covenants not to file a civil action or to take any administrative or other civil action against the Debtors: (i) To recover response costs or obtain injunctive relief with respect to the Facility pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a), or Section 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973; (ii) to obtain civil penalties pursuant to Section 311(b)(7)(A) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A), with respect to the oil discharge violations related to the Facility specifically alleged in the proofs of claim filed by EPA and USCG on February 7, 2011 (“EPA/USCG POCs”), (iii) to obtain civil penalties pursuant to Section 311(b)(7)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(B), with respect to the CWA Order violations specifically alleged in the EPA/USCG POCs; or (iv) to obtain civil penalties pursuant to Section 9006(d)(2) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e(d)(2), with respect to the Underground Storage Tank violations specifically alleged in the EPA/USCG POCs. The Agreement further provides for resolution of outstanding obligations of the Debtors to perform work or pay penalties under the CWA Order and an October 12, 1995, RCRA Administrative Order on Consent.
For a period of seven days from the date of this publication, the Department of Justice will receive and consider comments relating to the Agreement. All comments must be received by the Department of Justice within this seven day period. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Agreement may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Delaware, 1201 Market Street, Suite 1100, Wilmington, Delaware (contact Ellen Slights at 302-573-6277). During the public comment period, the Agreement may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters specified, as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Executive Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the revised Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “High Growth and Community-Based Job Training Grants,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Submit comments on or before June 24, 2011.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), e-mail:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at
This information collection request implements reporting requirements for High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) and Community-Based Job
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB control number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
By application dated May 12, 2011, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Pisgah Yarn & Dyeing Company, Old Fort, North Carolina (subject firm). The worker group includes on-site leased workers from Manpower, Inc. The determination was issued on April 28, 2011. The Department's Notice of Determination will soon be published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that there was no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the subject firm in production of yarn; that the quantity of sales and production at the subject firm increased in 2010 from 2009 levels; that the subject firm is neither a Supplier nor a Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance; and that the subject firm was not named in an affirmative finding of injury by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged that the company was sold to a Canadian firm.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Specifically, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine whether the purchasing firm was a successor-in-interest.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
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 10, 2011, applicable to workers of Bush Industries, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals and Labor Ready, Erie, Pennsylvania. The workers are engaged in the production of ready-to-assemble wood furniture. The determination was issued on February 10, 2011. The Department's Notice will soon be published in the
At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The review shows that a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance was issued for all workers of Bush Industries, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals and Labor Ready, Erie, Pennsylvania, separated from employment on or after January 26, 2009 through February 3, 2011 (TA-W-64,750). The Department's Notice was published in the
In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the Department is amending the December 10, 2009 impact date established for TA-W-74,995 to read February 4, 2011.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,995 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Bush Industries, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals and Labor Ready, Erie, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 4, 2011, through February 10, 2013, 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 September 3, 2010, applicable to workers of Hewlett Packard Company, Human Resources Division, Five Cities in California: Auburn, Cupertino, Palm Springs, Palo Alto and Roseville (Two Locations), California (TA-W-74,530), Boise, Idaho, (TA-W-74,530A), Ellicott City, Maryland (TA-W-74,530B), Canton, Michigan (TA-W-74,530C), Wake Forest, North Carolina (TA-W-74,530D), Corvallis, Oregon (TA-W-74,530E), Blue Bell, Pennsylvania (TA-W-74,530F), Three Locations in Texas: Houston and Plano (Two Locations), Texas, Teleworkers in Denton, Texas (TA-W-74,530G), Herndon, Virginia (TA-W-74,530H), and Vancouver, Washington (TA-W-74,530I). The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers provide human resource services.
New findings show that worker separations also occurred during the relevant time period at the following locations across ten states of Hewlett Packard Company, Human Resources Division: Marlboro and Andover, Massachusetts, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Frankfort, Kentucky, Las Vegas, Nevada, Miami, Florida, Edison, New Jersey, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Blue Ash, Ohio, Naperville, Illinois, and San Diego, California. Each location operates in conjunction with each other; all were part of the overall servicing operation and were impacted by the shift in human resource services to Panama.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include workers at the above mentioned locations of Hewlett Packard Company, Human Resources Division.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in human resource services to Panama.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,530 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers at the following locations across ten states of Hewlett Packard Company, Human Resources Division, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through Electronic Data Systems (EDS): Auburn, Cupertino, Palm Springs, Palo Alto, Roseville (two locations), and San Diego, California and teleworkers across California (TA-W-74,530); Boise, Idaho (TA-W-74,530A); Ellicott City, Maryland (TA-W-74,530B); Canton, Michigan (TA-W-74,530C); Wake Forest, North Carolina (TA-W-74,530D); Corvallis, Oregon (TA-W-74,530E); Blue Bell, Pennsylvania (TA-W-74,530F); Houston and Plano (two locations), Texas, and teleworkers in Denton, Texas (TA-W-74,530G); Herndon, Virginia (TA-W-74,530H); and Vancouver, Washington (TA-W-74,530I); Marlboro and Andover, (two locations), Massachusetts and teleworkers across Massachusetts (TA-W-74,530J; Colorado Springs, Colorado and teleworkers across Colorado (TA-W-74,530K); Frankfort, Kentucky and teleworkers across Kentucky (TA-W-74,530L); Las Vegas, Nevada and teleworkers across Nevada (TA-W-74,530M); Miami, Florida and teleworkers across Florida (TA-W-74,530N); Edison, New Jersey and teleworkers across New Jersey (TA-W-74,530O); Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and teleworkers across Oklahoma (TA-W-74,530P); Blue Ash, Ohio and teleworkers across Ohio (TA-W-74,539Q); Naperville, Illinois and teleworkers across Illinois (TA-W-74,530R), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 4, 2009, through September 3, 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 January 31, 2011, applicable to workers of St. John Knits, Inc., Irvine, California. The workers are engaged in the production of women's apparel. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The review shows that on August 18, 2008, a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance was issued for all workers of St. John Knits, Sample Manufacturing Department, Irvine, California, separated from employment on or after June 11, 2007 through August 18, 2010. The notice was published in the
In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the Department is amending the November 3, 2009 impact date established for TA-W-74,839, to read August 19, 2010.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-75,839 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of St. John Knits, Inc., Irvine, California, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 19, 2010, through January 31, 2013, 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 January 15, 2010, applicable to workers of SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including leased workers from Volt Services Group, Boise, Idaho (TA-W-72,251); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Salt Lake, Utah (TA-W-72,251A); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Franklin Park, Illinois (TA-W-72,251B); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Milford, Ohio (TA-W-72,251C); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Dublin, California (TA-W-72,251D); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Virginia Beach, Virginia (TA-W-72,251E); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including leased workers from Global Resources and Professional Employment Services, Phoenix, Arizona (TA-W-72,251F); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Malvern, Pennsylvania (TA-W-72,251G); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Portland, Oregon (TA-W-72,251H); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Aurora, Colorado (TA-W-72,251I); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Lanham, Maryland (TA-W-72,251J); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Las Vegas, Nevada (TA-W-72,251K); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Spokane, Washington (TA-W-72,251L); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, Fort Wayne, Indiana (TA-W-72,251M); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, West Bridgewater, Massachusetts (TA-W-72,251N). The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in employment related to the supply of information technology and finance services.
New information shows that American Drug Stores LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of New Albertsons, Inc. Some workers separated from employment at the subject firms have their wages reported under separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax accounts under the names New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by acquisition in services related to the supply of information technology and finance.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,251 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, including leased workers from Volt Services Group, Boise, Idaho (TA-W-72,251); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, Salt Lake, Utah (TA-W-72,251A); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, Franklin Park, Illinois (TA-W-72,251B); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, Milford, Ohio (TA-W-72,251C); SUPERVALU Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, Dublin, California (TA-W-72,251D); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia (TA-W-72,251E); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and Finance Departments, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are paid through New Albertsons, Inc., and American Drug Stores LLC, including leased workers from Global Resources and Professional Employment Services, Phoenix, Arizona (TA-W-72,251F); SUPERVALU, Inc., IT and
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor (“Department”) issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 19, 2010, applicable to workers of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, Real Estate Consulting, Houston, Texas (subject firm). The Department's Notice was published in the
The Department, on its own motion, reviewed the administrative record. The record revealed that an earlier petition (dated May 27, 2009) submitted on behalf of the same worker group was not properly instituted until March 11, 2010.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, Real Estate Consulting, Houston, Texas who were adversely affected by a shift in services to India that were separated on or after May 27, 2008 through November 19, 2012.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,696 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, Real Estate Consulting, Houston, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 27, 2008, through November 19, 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 March 2, 2010, applicable to workers of Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon. The workers produce general purpose electronic test equipment. 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 production of general purpose electronic test equipment.
New information shows that Maxtek has been renamed to Tektronix Component Solutions. In addition, some workers of Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon may now have their wages reported under Tektronix Service Solutions, a new subsidiary of Tektronix, Inc. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by the shift in production of general purpose electronic test equipment to a foreign country.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,888 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers Tektronix, Inc., including workers of Tektronix Component Solutions, formerly known as Maxtek, and Tektronix Service Solutions, a subsidiary of Tektronix, Inc., and including on-site leased workers
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 December 9, 2009, applicable to workers of Faribault Woolen Mill Company, Faribault, Minnesota. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of wool and wool blend blankets.
New findings show that worker separations occurred during the relevant time period at Faribo Woolens, Inc., a Related Company of Faribault Woolen Mill Company, a retail outlet store for the subject firm, Faribault Woolen Mill Company.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to include workers of the Faribo Woolens, Inc., A Related Company of Faribault Woolen Mill Company, Faribault, Minnesota.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased imports of wool and wool blend blankets.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,859 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Faribault Woolen Mill Company, Faribault, Minnesota (TA-W-71,859) and Faribo Woolens, Inc., A Related Company of Farbault Woolen Mills Company, Faribault, Minnesota (TA-W-71,859A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 29, 2008, through December 9, 2011, 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.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Modification Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by June 24, 2011. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address or (703) 292-7405.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
The applicant requests a modification to his permit to add two additional whale species: 200 Blue whales and 200 Fin whales. In addition, the applicant wishes to revise his current takes to 400 Killer whales, 300 Humpback whales, and 50 Minke whales.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Jean Trefethen, Project Manager, Environmental Review Branch A, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-5137; Fax: 301-415-5369; e-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application dated November 10, 2009, from the U.S. Department of Energy
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of its review of this proposed license renewal in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The NRC is also conducting a safety evaluation of this action, pursuant to 10 CFR part 72. The results of the safety evaluation will be documented in a separate Safety Evaluation Report. If DOE's request is approved, the NRC will issue a renewed license following the publication of this EA and FONSI.
The proposed licensing action is to renew license SNM-2504 for an additional 20 years to authorize the continued operation of the FSV ISFSI in Platteville, Colorado. If approved, DOE will be allowed to possess and store spent fuel and associated radioactive wastes at the FSV ISFSI until November 30, 2031.
The FSV ISFSI uses a Modular Vault Dry Storage (MVDS), which is a contained shield system designed for 40 years of interim storage of the FSV High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) fuel. The FSV reactor was built and operated during the 1970s and 1980s. It was permanently shut down in 1989 and decommissioned. Some of the spent fuel is in dry storage at DOE's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) facility. Facilities were not made available at INEL to store all the spent fuel and associated radioactive waste from the FSV reactor. Renewal of materials license SNM-2504 is needed for further safe storage of spent fuel at the FSV ISFSI.
The NRC has prepared an EA as part of its review of the proposed license renewal. The NRC staff considered the following environmental resource areas in its evaluation: Air quality; noise; land use; water use and quality; socioeconomics; historic, archaeological, and cultural resources; threatened and endangered species; scenic and visual; waste management; transportation; and public and occupational health and safety.
The environmental impacts of these resource areas were determined to be the small. The proposed license renewal request does not require altering the site footprint nor does it change the operating processes of the existing facility. The proposed action will not adversely affect Federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species. Public and occupational radiological dose exposures have been and are expected to be below 10 CFR part 20 regulatory limits. Cumulative impacts over the 20-year renewal period were also evaluated and determined to be small. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not result in a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
NRC staff consulted with other agencies regarding the proposed action, including regional Native American Tribes, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado Historical Society, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The consultations ensured that the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act were met and provided the designated State liaison agency the opportunity to comment on the proposed action.
On the basis of the EA, the NRC staff concludes that renewal of license SNM-2504 for the FSV ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31 and 51.32, an environmental impact statement is not warranted for the proposed action, and a FONSI is appropriate.
Documents related to this action, including the application for renewal of SNM-2504 and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of license amendment request, opportunity to comment, opportunity to request a hearing, and Commission order.
Submit comments by June 24, 2011. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 25, 2011. Any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by June 6, 2011.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0113 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed. You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. John Stang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-1345; fax number: 301-415-1222; e-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment would approve changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow the use of fiber reinforced polymer on masonry walls for uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado event.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
(1) Does the propose change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The in-fill masonry walls to be strengthened using an FRP system are passive, non-structural elements. The use of an [fiber reinforced polymer] FRP system on existing Auxiliary Building masonry walls will allow them to resist uniform pressure loads resulting from a tornado and will not adversely affect the structure's ability to withstand other design basis events such as earthquakes or fires.
Therefore, the proposed use of FRP on existing masonry walls will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the propose change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
(3) Does the propose change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Consequently, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received by June 24, 2011 will be considered in making any final determination. You may submit comments using any of the methods discussed under the
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Requirements for hearing requests and petitions for leave to intervene are found in 10 CFR 2.309, “Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.” Interested persons should consult 10 CFR part 2, Section 2.309, which is available at the NRC's Public
Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the requestor/petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition must provide the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner and specifically explain the reasons why the intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
A petition for leave to intervene must also include a specification of the contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the hearing. For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The petition must include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the position of the requestor/petitioner and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely. Finally, the petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the requestor/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Licensing Board) will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Non-timely petitions for leave to intervene and contentions, amended petitions, and supplemental petitions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the Licensing Board or a presiding officer that the petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A State, county, municipality, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agencies thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 25, 2011. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in Section IV of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that State and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes do not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d)(1) if the facility is located within its boundaries. The entities listed above could also seek to participate in a hearing as a nonparty pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(c).
Any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to this proceeding may request permission to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to such limits and conditions as may be imposed by the Licensing Board. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by July 25, 2011.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from May 25, 2011. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI)
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention;
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on June 8-10, 2011, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service.
Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Peace Corps invites the general public to comment on this request for reinstatement, without change, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired, the National Agency Check (NAC) Questionnaire for Peace Corps Volunteer Background Investigation (OMB Control Number 0420-0001).
Submit comments on or before July 25, 2011.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, Freedom of Information Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or e-mail at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
The NAC Questionnaire for Peace Corps Volunteer Background Investigation Form is used to conduct a formal background check. The data gathered is used to conduct a National Agency Check through the Office of Personnel Management who has pertinent records pertaining to applicants' legal activities and suitability.
a. Number of Average Applicants: 13,500.
b. Number of Applicants who submit NAC form: 13,500.
c. Frequency of response: One time.
d. Completion time: 15 minutes.
e. Annual burden hours: 3,375.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the Nooksack, Washington post office has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioner, and others to take appropriate action.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), on May 16, 2011, the Commission received a petition for review of the closing of the Nooksack Post Office in Nooksack, Washington.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the administrative record with the Commission is May 31, 2011.
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at
The Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.
1. The Postal Service shall file an answer to the application for suspension of the Postal Service's determination no later than May 24, 2011.
2. The Postal Service shall file the administrative record regarding this appeal no later than May 31, 2011.
3. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this Notice is due no later than May 31, 2011.
4. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
5. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard A. Oliver is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the Akron-East Station has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioner, and others to take appropriate action.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), on May 16, 2011, the Commission received two petitions for review of the closing of the Akron-East Station in Akron, Ohio. The petitions, which were filed by Paul J. Connor and Shirley Strader (Petitioners), are both postmarked May 11, 2011, and were posted on the Commission's Web site May 17, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and designates the case as Docket No. A2011-16 to consider Petitioners' appeals. If Petitioners would like to further explain their positions with supplemental information or facts, Petitioners may either file Participant Statements on PRC Form 61 or file briefs with the Commission no later than June 20, 2011.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the administrative record with the Commission is May 31, 2011.
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via
The Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.
1. The Postal Service shall file an answer to the application for suspension of the Postal Service's determination no later than May 26, 2011.
2. The Postal Service shall file the administrative record regarding this appeal no later than May 31, 2011.
3. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this Notice is due no later than May 31, 2011.
4. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
5. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard A. Oliver is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the
By the Commission.
The RRB uses a Personal Identification Number (PIN)/Password system that allows RRB customers to conduct business with the agency electronically. As part of the system, the RRB collects information needed to establish a unique PIN/Password that allows customer access to RRB Internet-based services. The information collected is matched against records of the railroad employee that are maintained by the RRB. If the information is verified, the request is approved and the RRB mails a Password Request Code (PRC) to the requestor. If the information provided cannot be verified, the requestor is advised to contact the nearest field office of the RRB to resolve the discrepancy. Once a PRC is obtained from the RRB, the requestor can apply for a PIN/Password online. Once the PIN/Password has been established, the requestor has access to RRB Internet-based services. The RRB estimates that approximately 9,613 requests for PRCs and 9,613 PIN/Passwords are received annually and that it takes 5 minutes per response to secure a PRC and 1.5 minutes to establish a PIN/Password. Two responses are requested of each respondent and completion is voluntary. However, the RRB will be unable to provide a PRC or allow a requestor to establish a PIN/Password (thereby denying system access), if the requests are not completed.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine (1) The practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 9,613.
Total annual responses: 19,226.
Total annual reporting hours: 1,041.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Patricia Henaghan, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .12 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4 to permit the listing of additional expiration months if such expiration months are listed on another exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office, at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit the Exchange to list additional expiration months if such expiration months are listed on another exchange. This filing is based on a filing previously submitted by the International Securities Exchange LLC.
Under current Rule 6.4(a), NYSE Arca usually will open four (4) expiration months for each type of option of a class of options open for trading on the Exchange: The first two (2) being the two nearest months, regardless of the quarterly cycle on which that class trades; the third and fourth month being the next two months of the quarterly cycle previously designated by the Exchange for the specific class. For example, if the Exchange listed in late September a new stock option on a January-April-July-October quarterly cycle, the Exchange would list the two nearest term months (October and November) and the next two expiration months of the cycle (January and April). Further, when the October series expire, the Exchange would add the December series as the next nearest month. And when the November series expire, the Exchange would add the July series as the next month of the cycle.
In 2010, the Exchange established a pilot program to add up to two additional expiration months for each class of options opened for trading on the Exchange (the “Additional Expiration Months Pilot”).
ISE recently submitted a filing in response to a filing by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (“PHLX”).
For competitive reasons, NYSE Arca now proposes to add new Commentary .12 to its Rule 6.4 and Commentary .01 to its Rule 5.19 to permit the Exchange to list additional expiration months on options classes opened for trading on the Exchange if such expiration months are opened on at least one other national securities exchange, identical to the provision recently added by ISE.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change affords additional flexibility in that it will permit the exchange to list those additional expiration months that have an actual demand from market participants thereby potentially reducing the proliferation of classes and series. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is proper, and indeed necessary, in light of the need to have rules that permit the listing of identical expiration months across exchanges for products that are multiply listed and fungible with one another. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change should encourage competition and be beneficial to traders and market participants by providing them with a means to trade on the Exchange securities that are listed and traded on other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal should promote competition by allowing the Exchange to list and trade option series that are trading on other options exchanges without undue delay. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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.
May 19, 2011.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .14 to NYSE Amex Rule 903 to permit the listing of additional expiration months if such expiration months are listed on another exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office, at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit the Exchange to list additional expiration months if such expiration months are listed on another exchange. This filing is based on a filing previously submitted by the International Securities Exchange LLC.
Under current Rule 903(b), NYSE Amex usually will open four (4) expiration months for each type of option of a class of options open for trading on the Exchange: The first two (2) being the two nearest months, regardless of the quarterly cycle on which that class trades; the third and fourth month being the next two months of the quarterly cycle previously designated by the Exchange for the specific class. For example, if the Exchange listed in late September a new stock option on a January-April-July-October quarterly cycle, the Exchange would list the two nearest term months (October and November) and the next two expiration months of the cycle (January and April). Further, when the October series expire, the Exchange would add the December series as the next nearest month. And when the November series expire, the Exchange would add the July series as the next month of the cycle.
In 2010, the Exchange established a pilot program to add up to the two additional expiration months for each class of options opened for trading on the Exchange (the “Additional Expiration Months Pilot”).
ISE recently submitted a filing in response to a filing by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (“PHLX”).
For competitive reasons, NYSE Amex now proposes to add new Commentary .14 to its Rule 903 and new Commentary .08 to its Rule 903C to permit the Exchange to list additional expiration months on options classes opened for trading on the Exchange if such expiration months are opened on at least one other national securities exchange, identical to the provision recently added by ISE.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change affords additional flexibility in that it will permit the exchange to list those additional expiration months that have an actual demand from market participants thereby potentially reducing the proliferation of classes and series. The Exchange believes the
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal should promote competition by allowing the Exchange to list and trade option series that are trading on other options exchanges without undue delay. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Fee Schedule (the “Schedule”) to (1) reinstitute the standard marketing charges for electronic complex order executions that had been temporarily waived, (2) eliminate the fee charged to Customers (other than Professional Customers) for electronic complex order executions and (3) provide that the per contract fee for electronic complex order executions will no longer be capped for Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers even though such executions and the related fees will count toward existing thresholds in the Schedule applicable to such participants that will otherwise still cap their per contract fees on other types of executions. The proposed changes will be operative on May 11, 2011.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to reinstitute the standard marketing charges
The Exchange further proposes to eliminate the fees charged to Customers (other than Professional Customers) for electronic complex order executions. Currently, Customers trade without a charge for non-complex order executions as provided in the Schedule, and the Exchange is proposing to extend that treatment to complex order executions. With this change, the execution of Customer electronic complex orders will be priced identically with the execution of any other Customer order, complex or otherwise, in the Exchange's system. The Exchange notes that other competing exchanges also have a $0.00 per contract rate charge for non-professional customers for the execution of complex orders.
Finally, the Exchange proposes that the per contract fee for electronic complex order executions will no longer be capped for Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers even though such executions and the related fees will still count toward existing dollar and volume thresholds in the Schedule applicable to such participants that will otherwise still cap their per contract fees on other types of executions. For example, the Schedule currently provides that the fees of a Market Maker will be aggregated and capped at $250,000 per month for all types of executions, so a Market Maker that has reached this level would not be charged a fee for additional order executions, including electronic complex order executions, until a volume level of 2,500,000 contracts is reached for that month. In the latter instance, the Market Marker would only be charged a fee of $0.01 per contract for executions in excess of the 2,500,000 contact level, including electronic complex order executions. With the elimination of the current $0.05 per contract fee that is charged to Customers for electronic complex order executions, the Exchange could be in the position of receiving either no revenue at all or only $0.01 per contract for electronic complex order executions in which a Market Maker trades with a Customer. Consequently, it is proposed that the current fee caps will no longer be applicable to electronic complex order executions, which would continue to incur a fee of $0.05 per contract on the Market Maker's side of a trade regardless of whether either or both of the foregoing monthly thresholds have been met. Such executions would, however, still count toward meeting those threshold levels and could therefore impact the fees paid on other types of executions by such a Market Maker.
The proposed changes will be operative on May 11, 2011.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange further believes that the re-imposition of marketing charges on market makers who trade with electronic Customer orders in the complex order book is reasonable and equitable because it is based on the need to attract additional Customer complex order flow to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants. The Exchange notes that reinstituting marketing charges as proposed will simplify the fee schedule, thereby making it easier for market makers in particular to factor these charges into the models that [sic] use to make trading decisions. Finally, the Exchange believes that reinstituting marketing charges as proposed is not unfairly discriminatory because it means that electronic complex orders will be treated in the same manner as any other orders for the purpose of assessing payment for order flow charges.
The preferential rate of $0.00 proposed to be charged to Customers (other than Professional Customers) is reasonable and equitable because it will extend to electronic complex order executions the same fee treatment that the Exchange currently provides to Customers for non-complex order executions. The Exchange also notes that, as discussed above, competing exchanges have extended the same preferential treatment to customer fees for the execution of complex orders and the Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to adjust its fees accordingly to remain competitive with the fees charged by other venues. The Exchange notes that historically Customers have been afforded preferential treatment such as priority at a price over non-Customers
Finally, the removal of the cap applicable to Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers as it applies to the execution of electronic complex orders effectively removes a “tier” for such market participants in the fees applicable to such orders, thereby instituting a $0.05 per contract side fee that is equally applicable to all types of market participants, other than Customers, for the same trade. This change will further simplify the Schedule as it applies to the execution of electronic complex orders. The Exchange believes that the removal of the cap currently applicable to the aforementioned market participants is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it relates to those market participants because, even though they will be paying $0.05 per contract for executions that previously would have cost them $0.01 or $0.00 per contract under the cap, they will have the opportunity to interact with the additional complex order flow attracted to the Exchange by the elimination of the Customer rate charge. In addition, the new rate of $0.05 per contract for those executions is fair and equitable in that it is not a large increase and it will continue to be less than those same market participants are charged for electronic executions outside of the complex order book, which can be as much as $0.17 per contract.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive or discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the complex order fees and rebates it assesses must be competitive with fees and rebates assessed on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today and influences the proposals set forth above.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to engage in proprietary trading from their approved booth premises in certain OTC Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”) and OTC Markets
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to engage in proprietary trading from their approved booth premises in certain OTCBB and OTC Markets securities.
In June 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) adopted NYSE Rule 70.40, which permits a member organization to operate its booth premises on the NYSE Floor in a manner similar to its “upstairs” office, thereby allowing member organizations to access other markets and trade a wider array of products from their booth premises and thus operate more efficiently and competitively.
After more than two years of experience with NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40, member organizations have requested that certain types of proprietary trading be permitted under the Rule, and the Exchange has determined that it is appropriate to do so. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to revise NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to effect transactions in the common, preferred, and debt securities of an operating company that is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or OTC Markets (an “OTC Security”) from their approved booth premises for their own account, the account of an associated person, or an account with respect to which they or an associated person thereof exercise investment discretion, except that such member organizations could not effect such transactions in an OTC Security that is related to a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE.
Under the proposed rule change, an OTC Security would be considered related to a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE
(b) The OTC Security is subject to a corporate action that relates to the issuer of a security that is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE or that underlies an NYSE Amex option, or an affiliate of such issuer;
(c) The OTC Security is issued by an issuer of a security that is a component of a narrow-based security index
(d) The OTC Security is issued by a foreign issuer or is a depositary receipt (or the equivalent thereof) for such a security, and a security issued by such foreign issuer or a depositary receipt (or the equivalent thereof) for such a security is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE or underlies an NYSE Amex option.
Under the proposed rule, a corporate action would be any action by an issuer of an OTC Security or a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE that causes a relationship between the price of the OTC Security and the price of the security that is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE or that underlies an NYSE Amex option, such as the announcement of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, spinoff, dissolution, bankruptcy filing or other similar type of event involving the issuers.
The Exchange believes that an NYSE Amex member organization would not have any type of time, place, or information advantage with respect to the proposed proprietary trading activity that could create a potential issue or conflict with respect to the federal securities laws or Exchange rules. A member organization's proprietary transactions in OTC Securities would receive the same treatment as any other investor's transactions in such securities. Consistent with the permitted customer trading under current NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40, the Exchange would deem the proposed proprietary transactions to be off-Floor or “upstairs” transactions for purposes of its Rules.
The Exchange believes that member organizations face increased competition as a result of changes in the structure of securities markets and are continually searching for ways to operate more efficiently.
At the same time, the proposed proprietary transactions in OTC Securities would remain subject to all of the other provisions of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40. First, a member organization would have to obtain approval from NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSER”) to engage in proprietary OTC Securities trading from booth premises.
Second, all such transactions would be subject to the regulatory requirements that apply to “upstairs” trading, including registration requirements and audit trail requirements applicable to those markets and supervision requirements under NYSE Amex Equities Rule 342.
Finally, a member organization would be required to adopt and implement comprehensive written procedures governing the conduct and supervision of proprietary trading in OTC Securities handled through the booth and the staff responsible for such activities; such procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure that the member organization would be trading in compliance with the requirements of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.40, including that it is not effecting transactions from booth premises in OTC Securities that are related to securities listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE. A member organization would be required to obtain NYSER approval of such written procedures before such trading commences.
At a minimum, such written procedures must require the member organization to exercise due diligence before commencing trading in an OTC Security from the booth premises pursuant to this Rule to ensure that such trading is in compliance with the requirements of this Rule and that the member organization has procedures to monitor its trading activity in order to remain in compliance. A member organization must have supervisory systems in place that produce records sufficient to reconstruct, in a time-sequenced manner, all orders with respect to which the member organization is trading from the booth premises under this Rule. The member organization must be able to demonstrate which OTC Security transactions were effected from the booth premises (as compared to off-Floor trading, if applicable). If the member organization could not demonstrate which trading is from the booth premises, the Exchange would presume that all such trading was effected from the booth premises.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(5) to reduce the minimum order entry size of a Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Order (“MPL Order”) from 100 shares to one share. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(5) to reduce the minimum order entry size of an MPL Order from 100 shares to one share.
MPL Orders were initially designed to accommodate larger customer transactions and required a minimum order entry size of 1,000 shares.
The Exchange believes that reducing the minimum order entry size from 100 shares to one share would further enhance opportunities for execution on the Exchange using MPL Orders, especially with respect to retail customer orders that are often smaller than one round lot of 100 shares.
The Exchange also proposes to reduce the specified minimum executable size
The Exchange is not proposing any other changes or amendments to the MPL Order. The Exchange intends to communicate the proposed reductions in the minimum order entry size and minimum executable size to its Users through a Rule Adoption Notice.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, 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
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to engage in proprietary
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE proposes to amend NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to engage in proprietary trading from their approved booth premises in certain OTCBB and OTC Markets securities.
In June 2007, the Exchange adopted NYSE Rule 70.40, which permits a member organization to operate its booth premises on the Exchange Floor in a manner similar to its “upstairs” office, thereby allowing member organizations to access other markets and trade a wider array of products from their booth premises and thus operate more efficiently and competitively.
After more than three years of experience with NYSE Rule 70.40, member organizations have requested that certain types of proprietary trading be permitted under the Rule, and the Exchange has determined that it is appropriate to do so. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to revise NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to effect transactions in the common, preferred, and debt securities of an operating company that is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or OTC Markets (an “OTC Security”) from their approved booth premises for their own account, the account of an associated person, or an account with respect to which they or an associated person thereof exercise investment discretion, except that such member organizations could not effect such transactions in an OTC Security that is related to a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex.
Under the proposed rule change, an OTC Security would be considered related to a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex
(a) the OTC Security is issued by an issuer of a security that is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or that underlies an NYSE Amex option, or an affiliate of such issuer;
(b) the OTC Security is subject to a corporate action that relates to the issuer of a security that is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or that underlies an NYSE Amex option, or an affiliate of such issuer;
(c) the OTC Security is issued by an issuer of a security that is a component of a narrow-based security index
(d) the OTC Security is issued by a foreign issuer or is a depositary receipt (or the equivalent thereof) for such a security, and a security issued by such foreign issuer or a depositary receipt (or the equivalent thereof) for such a security is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or underlies an NYSE Amex option.
Under the proposed rule, a corporate action would be any action by an issuer of an OTC Security or a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex that causes a relationship between the price of the OTC Security and the price of the security that is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or that underlies an NYSE Amex option, such as the announcement of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, spinoff, dissolution, bankruptcy filing or other similar type of event involving the issuers.
The Exchange believes that an NYSE member organization would not have any type of time, place, or information advantage with respect to the proposed proprietary trading activity that could create a potential issue or conflict with respect to the federal securities laws or Exchange rules. A member organization's proprietary transactions in OTC Securities would receive the same treatment as any other investor's transactions in such securities. Consistent with the permitted customer trading under current NYSE Rule 70.40, the Exchange would deem the proposed proprietary transactions to be off-Floor or “upstairs” transactions for purposes of its Rules.
The Exchange believes that member organizations face increased competition as a result of changes in the structure of securities markets and are continually searching for ways to operate more efficiently.
At the same time, the proposed proprietary transactions in OTC Securities would remain subject to all of the other provisions of NYSE Rule 70.40. First, a member organization
Second, all such transactions would be subject to the regulatory requirements that apply to “upstairs” trading, including registration requirements and audit trail requirements applicable to those markets and supervision requirements under NYSE Rule 342.
Finally, a member organization would be required to adopt and implement comprehensive written procedures governing the conduct and supervision of proprietary trading in OTC Securities handled through the booth and the staff responsible for such activities; such procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure that the member organization would be trading in compliance with the requirements of NYSE Rule 70.40, including that it is not effecting transactions from booth premises in OTC Securities that are related to securities listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex. A member organization would be required to obtain NYSER approval of such written procedures before such trading commences.
At a minimum, such written procedures must require the member organization to exercise due diligence before commencing trading in an OTC Security from the booth premises pursuant to this Rule to ensure that such trading is in compliance with the requirements of this Rule and that the member organization has procedures to monitor its trading activity in order to remain in compliance. A member organization must have supervisory systems in place that produce records sufficient to reconstruct, in a time-sequenced manner, all orders with respect to which the member organization is trading from the booth premises under this Rule. The member organization must be able to demonstrate which OTC Security transactions were effected from the booth premises (as compared to off-Floor trading, if applicable). If the member organization could not demonstrate which trading is from the booth premises, the Exchange would presume that all such trading was effected from the booth premises.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the President under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1978 (hereinafter “the Act”), and assigned to the Secretary of State by virtue of Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13346 of July 8, 2004, as well as the authority delegated to the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources by Delegation of Authority 245-1 of February 13, 2009, I determine, pursuant to Section 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that the further extension of the waiver authority granted by Section 402 of the Act will substantially promote the objectives of Section 402 of the Act. I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to Turkmenistan will substantially promote the objectives of Section 402 of the Act.
This determination shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for [a new or to renew an] information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by June 24, 2011.
Carla Scott on (202) 385-4293, or by
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 U.S.C. authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. Information is collected to determine compliance with Federal regulations. Respondents are individual airmen, state or local governments, and businesses.
Written comments should be submitted by July 25, 2011.
Carla Scott on (202) 385-4293, or by e-mail at:
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at Helena Regional Airport (HLN) under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2011.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address:
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Ronald Mercer, Airport Director, Helena Regional Airport Authority (HRAA), at the following address:
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at HLN under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
On May 16, 2011 the FAA determined that the May 10, 2011 request submitted by HRAA to release property at HLN meets the procedural requirements of the FAA. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than June 24, 2011.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
HRAA is proposing the release of approximately 2,337 square feet of non-aeronautical airport property at HLN to the State of Montana Department of Transportation, to be used as right-of-way for an improved turning lane from Custer Ave to Kelleher Drive in Helena, Montana. The road improvements are expected to be constructed in 2011 and 2012 and will provide improved access to HLN and the community.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under the heading:
In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Airport Administration Office, Helena Regional Airport, Helena, Montana.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by June 24, 2011.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2011-0036.
Allen Greenberg at
As a response to the opening of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in the Washington, D.C., metro area in the mid-1970s, a unique commuting phenomenon developed, commonly known as “slugging.” This type of single-trip dynamic carpooling evolved from drivers and passengers coming together to fulfill each party's needs (e.g., allowing drivers to meet HOV requirements and thus use the express travel lanes while riders receive a free, potentially faster trip to work). Academic and entrepreneurial types alike are looking at ways to facilitate dynamic ridesharing through technological means. Some suggestions for enhancing dynamic ridesharing include website forums that connect drivers with riders and Smartphone applications that would allow drivers and riders to register and connect with each other. These efforts build off of the success of three meeting-place based dynamic ridesharing systems that exist in Houston, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The three systems have no formal leadership or management; rather they have evolved to fulfill a need for carpools created by the presence of HOV lanes. These naturally occurring dynamic ridesharing systems operate by having drivers and riders meet at central, easily accessible locations, such as park-and-ride lots where they create instantaneous carpools based on desired destinations. The sluglines are highly successful and have existed for a long time (30+ years in the case of DC.), and they are a critical component to these robust dynamic ridesharing systems which serve thousands of commuters each weekday. Despite their success and interesting nature, exploring dynamic ridesharing programs warrant further evaluation.
Focus group participants will be recruited based on a number of criteria. The primary factors are whether participants have utilized dynamic carpooling, the frequency of their use and whether they use dynamic ridesharing to commute to work. Participants would not be representing their place of work, and they would be asked to participate as members of the public on their own time outside of work hours.
Annual Total = 171 hours.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 24, 2011.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Carlita Ballard at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs (NVS-131), 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W43-439, NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-5222. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
The 1984 Theft Act, as amended by ACTA, requires NHTSA to promulgate a theft prevention standard for the designation of high-theft vehicle lines. The specific lines are to be selected by agreement between the manufacturer and the agency. If there is a disagreement of the selection, the statute states that the agency shall select such lines and parts, after notice to the manufacturer and an opportunity for written comment. NHTSA's procedures for selecting high theft vehicle lines are contained in 49 CFR part 542.
In a final rule published on April 6, 2004, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard was extended to include all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, regardless of whether they were likely to be high or low theft, and to light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles. The final rule became effective September 1, 2006.
NHTSA anticipates that there are approximately 7 vehicle manufacturers that could request a theft determination. All seven are still active in the U.S. market and could respond on an annual basis. We anticipate this to remain the average number of yearly responses that could be received by the agency.
NHTSA estimates that the average hours per submittal will be 45, for a total annual burden of 315. The total annual burden of 315 remains the same as the current OMB inventory. NHTSA estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is a $57.06 per hour, for a total cost of approximately $18,000.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 24, 2011.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Carlita Ballard at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs (NVS-131), 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W43-439, NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
In a final rule published on April 6, 2004, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard was extended to include all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and to light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Consistent with this DOJ consultation, the April 6, 2004 final rule amended the general requirements of Section 543.5 of Chapter 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, allowing a manufacturer to petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one additional line of its passenger motor vehicles from the requirements of the theft prevention standard for each
Prior to September 1, 2006, manufacturers were only allowed to petition NHTSA for high-theft vehicles lines. In its April 6, 2004 final rule, the agency amended part 543 to allow vehicle manufacturers to file petitions to exempt all vehicle lines that would become subject to parts-marking requirements beginning with the effective date of the final rule. As a result of this amendment, vehicle manufacturers are allowed to file petitions to exempt all vehicle lines that would become subject to the parts-marking requirements regardless of their theft status (high or low).
There are approximately 27 vehicle manufacturers that could request an exemption (one exemption per manufacturer per model year), although 23 petitions for exemption from the parts-marking requirements were received by the agency for MYs 2011-2013. This is an average of approximately 8 responses per year. NHTSA anticipates that this will remain the average number of yearly responses that will be received by the agency.
NHTSA estimates that the average hours per submittal will be 226, for a total annual burden of 1,808. This is a decrease from the previous OMB inventory of 3,164 hours. NHTSA estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is $36.62 per hour, for a total cost of approximately $66,209.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is June 23, 2011.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
US SPECS, LLC (“US SPECS”), of Havre de Grace, Maryland (Registered Importer 03-321) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether non-U.S. certified 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles that US SPECS believes are substantially similar are 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles to their U.S. certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
US SPECS submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 106
The petitioner further contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated below:
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 120
Standard No. 123
Standard No. 205
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006,) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
DATE: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 24, 2011.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
J.K. Technologies, LLC (“JK”), of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which JK believes are substantially similar are 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006 are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 209
Standard No. 225
Standard No. 401
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
The Department of Treasury will submit the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11010, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning adjustments to basis of stock and indebtedness to shareholders of S corporations and treatment of distributions by S corporations to shareholders.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of revenue procedure should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2002-23, Taxation of Canadian Retirement Plans Under U.S.—Canada Income Tax Treaty.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5713, International Boycott Report.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the burden related to existing final regulations, TD 8700, Mark to Market for Dealers in Securities (§§ 1.475(b)-4, and 1.475(c)-1).
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, (202) 622-3634, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Elaine Christophe at 202 622-3179, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form CT-1, Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Elaine H. Christophe, (202) 622-3179, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at (202) 622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning certain returned magazines, paperbacks or records.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8329, Lender's Information Return for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs) and Form 8330, Issuer's Quarterly Information Return for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs).
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5309, Application for Determination of Employee Stock Ownership Plan.
Written comments should be received on or before July 25, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of Open Meeting
In 1998 the Internal Revenue Service established the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC). The primary purpose of ETAAC is to provide an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues in support of the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC offers constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs, and procedures, and suggests improvements. The ETAAC will share recommendations and discuss the Annual Report to Congress.
Last-minute changes to these topics are possible and could prevent advance notice.
There will be a meeting of ETAAC on Wednesday, June 15, 2011. You must register in advance to be put on a guest list to attend the meeting. This meeting will be open to the public, and will be in a room that accommodates approximately 40 people, including members of ETAAC and IRS officials. Seats are available to members of the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Escorts will be provided so attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes before the meeting begins. Members of the public may file written statements sharing ideas for electronic tax administration.
The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 2116, Washington, DC 20024.
You must provide your name in advance for the guest list and be able to show your state-issued picture identification on the day of the meeting. Otherwise, you will not be able to attend the meeting as this is a secured building. Notification of intent should include your name, organization and telephone number. Please spell out all names if you leave a voice message. To receive general information about ETAAC, please contact Cassandra Daniels on 202-283-2178 or at
ETAAC reports to the Director, Electronic Tax Administration and Refundable Credits, who is also the executive responsible for the electronic tax administration program. Increasing participation by external stakeholders in the development and implementation of the strategy for electronic tax administration will help IRS achieve the goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC members are not paid for their time or services, but consistent with Federal regulations, they are reimbursed for their travel and lodging expenses to attend the public meetings, working sessions, and an orientation each year.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act provide that Indian tribes may designate an agent other than the tribal chairman for service of notice of proceedings under the Act. This notice includes the current list of designated tribal agents for service of notice.
Sue V. Settles, Chief, Human Services Division, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240;
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901
This notice presents, in two different formats, the names and addresses of current designated tribal agents for service of notice. The first format lists designated tribal agents by region and alphabetically by tribe within each region. The second format is a table that lists designated tribal agents alphabetically by the tribal affiliation (first listing American Indian tribes, then listing Alaska Native tribes). Each format also lists the Bureau of Indian Affairs contact(s) for each of the twelve regions.
(b) I hereby determine that, to the extent section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) may apply, the making of donations of the types of articles specified in such section by, to, or for the benefit of any ISA-sanctioned person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a)(iv) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a)(iv) of this section include but are not limited to:
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “financial institution” includes (i) a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(1)), including a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978) (12 U.S.C. 3101(7)); (ii) a credit union; (iii) a securities firm, including a broker or dealer; (iv) an insurance company, including an agency or underwriter; and (v) any other company that provides financial services;
(e) the term “United States financial institution” means a financial institution (including its foreign branches) organized under the laws of the United States or of any jurisdiction within the United States; and
(f) the term “ISA-sanctioned person” means a person that the President, or the Secretary of State pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, including consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, has determined is a person on whom sanctions shall be imposed pursuant to section 5 of ISA and on whom the President or the Secretary of State has imposed any of the sanctions in section 6 of ISA.