Agricultural Marketing Service
Farm Service Agency
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Justice Programs Office
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Royalty Board
Management and Budget Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
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 the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule.
This document sets forth the revised appendices to the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation for the 2012 quota year reflecting the cumulative annual transfers from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2 for certain dairy product import licenses permanently surrendered by licensees or revoked by the Licensing Authority.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 1021, Washington, DC 20250-1021; or by telephone at (202) 720-9439; or by email at:
The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.37 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, monitors their use.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states: “Whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of § 6.23, is permanently surrendered or is revoked by the Licensing Authority, the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2.” Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published in the
Agricultural commodities, Cheese, Dairy products, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 6 is amended as follows:
Additional U.S. Notes 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16-23 and 25 to Chapter 4 and General Note 15 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), Pub. L. 97-258, 96 Stat. 1051, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9701), and secs. 103 and 404, Pub. L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4819 (19 U.S.C. 3513 and 3601).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the California Olive Committee (Committee) for 2012 and subsequent fiscal years from $16.61 to $31.32 per assessable ton of olives handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of olives grown in California. Assessments upon olive handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal year began January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Jerry L. Simmons, Marketing Specialist or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Laurel May, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable olives beginning on January 1, 2012, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2012 and subsequent fiscal years from $16.61 to $31.32 per ton of assessable olives.
The California olive marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of California olives. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2011 and subsequent fiscal years, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on December 15, 2011, and unanimously recommended 2012 expenditures of $1,197,291 and an assessment rate of $31.32 per ton of assessable olives. Olives are an alternate year bearing crop. Olive growers and handlers are accustomed to wide swings in crop yields and assessments from year to year. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $2,203,909. The assessment rate of $31.32 is $14.71 higher than the rate currently in effect.
The Committee recommended the higher assessment rate because of a substantial decrease in the assessable olive volume for the 2012 fiscal year. The olive volume available for fiscal year 2011 as reported by the California Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) is 26,944 tons, which compares to 167,000 tons reported for the 2010 fiscal year. The reduced crop is due to olives being an alternate year bearing fruit. The Committee also plans to use available reserve funds to help meet its 2012 expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2012 fiscal year include $333,791 for research, $480,000 for marketing activities, $50,000 for inspection equipment development, and $333,500 for administration. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2011 were $1,093,009, $700,000, $75,000 and $335,900, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated fiscal year expenses, actual olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2011 crop year, and additional pertinent factors. Actual assessable tonnage for the 2012 fiscal year is expected to be lower than the 2011 crop receipts of 167,000 tons reported by the CASS because some olives may be diverted by handlers to uses that are exempt from marketing order requirements. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 932.40).
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,000 producers of olives in the production area and 2 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000.
Based upon information from the industry and CASS, the average grower price for 2011 was approximately $798 per ton and total grower production was around 26,944 tons. Based on production, producer prices, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities. Both of the handlers may be classified as large entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2012 and subsequent fiscal years from $16.61 to $31.32 per ton of assessable olives. The Committee unanimously recommended 2012 expenditures of $1,197,291 and an assessment rate of $31.32 per ton. The higher assessment rate is necessary because assessable olive receipts for the 2012 fiscal year were reported by the CASS to be 26,944 tons, compared to 167,000 tons for the 2011 fiscal year. Actual assessable tonnage for the 2012 fiscal year is expected to be lower because some of the receipts may be diverted by handlers to exempt outlets on which assessments are not paid. Income derived from the $31.32 per ton assessment rate along with funds from the authorized reserve and interest income should be adequate to meet this year's expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2012 fiscal year include $333,791 for research, $480,000 for marketing activities, $50,000 for inspection equipment development, and $333,500 for administration. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2011 were $1,093,009, $700,000, $75,000 and $335,900, respectively. The Committee recommended decreases in all major expense categories due to the huge decrease in assessable crop volume as reported by the CASS.
Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the reduced olive production. The assessment rate of $31.32 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the volume of assessable olives, and additional pertinent factors.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal year indicates that grower price could range between approximately $1,000 per ton and $1,200 per ton of olives. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2012 fiscal year as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 2.6 and 3.1 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California's olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 15, 2011, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they will be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Laurel May at the previously-mentioned address in the
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists
Olives, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after January 1, 2012, an assessment rate of $31.32 per ton is established for California olives.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule establishes a minimum quality regulation for lots of pistachios imported into the United States. The regulation specifies maximum aflatoxin tolerance levels as well as mandatory aflatoxin testing and certification requirements. These import quality requirements are the same as or comparable to those in effect for the domestically produced commodity. Under this regulation, aflatoxin levels in imported pistachios may not exceed 15 parts per billion (ppb), as certified by aflatoxin inspection certificates issued by an accredited laboratory. This action is intended to assure consumers that all pistachios offered for sale in the United States meet the same aflatoxin standards, thus promoting high quality product in the market place and fostering consumer satisfaction.
Laurel May or Kathleen Finn, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Laurel May at the above mentioned address.
This final rule is issued under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” which provides that whenever the grade, size, quality, or maturity of certain specified commodities, including pistachios, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities. To ensure that these requirements are met, the Act also authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to perform inspections and related functions such as commodity sampling, and to issue inspection certificates for such imported commodities.
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.
This final rule adds a new § 999.600 under 7 CFR part 999—Specialty Crops; Import Regulations, and establishes quality requirements for maximum aflatoxin tolerance levels and mandatory testing and certification requirements for pistachios offered for importation into the United States. These quality requirements for imported pistachios are the same as or comparable to those established for pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983 (7 CFR part 983) (order), both as amended.
This final rule also revises § 999.500, which specifies safeguard procedures for the importation of walnuts and dates that are exempt from § 8e regulations. This section is revised to include safeguard procedures for the importation of pistachios intended for exempted purposes.
The order prohibits the shipping of pistachios for domestic human consumption that do not meet the quality requirements for aflatoxin levels in the nuts. Such quality requirements specify that aflatoxin levels may not exceed the maximum tolerance of 15 ppb. Pistachios that fail to meet these requirements must be reworked and retested, or disposed of as specified in the order. This regulation was designed to ensure that only high quality pistachios containing low levels of aflatoxin are shipped, thus promoting high quality product in the market place and fostering consumer satisfaction.
The order, which was established for California pistachios in 2004, was recently amended to include the states of Arizona and New Mexico. Pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico represent over 99 percent of the U.S. domestic production, and 98 percent of the domestic consumption. Thus, almost all domestically produced pistachios are regulated under Marketing Order No. 983. There is no other Federal marketing order in effect for pistachios produced in the United States.
According to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Iran is typically the world's largest pistachio producer, followed by the U.S. and Turkey, although Syria's production has increased in recent years. During the three most recent crop years (September through August) for which complete data is available, 2007-08 through 2009-10, the production averages in millions of pounds (inshell basis) for Iran, the U.S., Turkey, and Syria were approximately 386, 350, 120, and 141, respectively.
Historically, the bulk of U.S. pistachio imports have come from Turkey and Iran, although Iranian imports have been prohibited since July 2010. The remainder comes from other countries, including Italy, China, Switzerland, France, Australia, Hong Kong, and Israel. Imported pistachios may be inshell or shelled. According to FAS, the U.S. imported an average of approximately 1.7 million pounds of pistachios (inshell basis) annually
The new regulation includes definitions of terms used in the import regulation. Such terms are the same as or comparable to those defined in the marketing order for domestic pistachios as established at 69 FR 17844 (April 5, 2004) and amended at 74 FR 56532 (November 2, 2009).
Under the new regulation, “pistachio” means the nut of the pistachio tree,
The presence or absence of aflatoxin is considered a quality characteristic in pistachios
The new regulation establishes a maximum aflatoxin tolerance level of 15 ppb for lots of pistachios imported into the U.S. for human consumption. As required under section 8e of the Act, this is the same level currently prescribed for domestic pistachios regulated under the order. Establishing a 15 ppb limit for aflatoxin in all pistachios marketed for human consumption in the United States is expected to bolster overall consumer confidence in pistachio quality and strengthen the demand for pistachios. Comparatively, the international Codex Alimentarius Commission's (Codex) maximum aflatoxin tolerance for pistachios is 10 ppb. The domestic pistachio industry believes that 15 ppb is appropriate to ensure the quality of pistachios sold in U.S. markets.
The new regulation provides for aflatoxin sampling procedures based on lot size. Such sampling procedures are the same as or comparable to those established for domestic shipments, and mirror the sampling procedures prescribed for pistachio shipments to the European Union. At the discretion of the importer, pistachio lots arriving at a U.S. port of entry will be warehoused near the port or shipped inland to a pistachio handling facility to await aflatoxin sampling and testing. Importers will be responsible for any transportation or storage fees incurred. Depending on the size of the lot, a specified number of incremental samples will be pulled and combined to form a lot sample. The lot sample will then be divided into smaller test samples, depending upon the size of the lot to be tested. The required weight of lot samples and test samples differs between inshell pistachios and shelled kernels because of the additional weight of the shells for inshell pistachios. The drawing and dividing of all samples must be conducted by or under the supervision of a Federal or Federal-State inspector.
Following the drawing and dividing of samples, each sample must be properly identified and submitted to a USDA or USDA-accredited laboratory for analysis. Test samples will be prepared and analyzed using High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or the immunoaffinity column with direct flourometry method as approved by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). The aflatoxin level will be calculated on a kernel weight basis.
For lots of up to 4,400 lbs, one test sample will be analyzed. If the sample has an aflatoxin level at or below 15 ppb, the lot may be certified as negative for aflatoxin on the aflatoxin inspection certificate, which will be completed by the laboratory. If the aflatoxin level is greater than 15 ppb, the lot fails, and the laboratory will fill out a failed lot notification report for submission to the importer, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs), and USDA.
For lots of more than 4,400 lbs, two test samples will be prepared. If the first sample has an aflatoxin level at or below 10 ppb, the lot may be certified as negative for aflatoxin on the aflatoxin inspection certificate. Analysis of the other test sample would be unnecessary. If the aflatoxin level of the first test sample is above 20 ppb, the lot fails, and the laboratory will fill out a failed lot notification report for submission to the importer, Customs, and USDA. If the aflatoxin level of the first test sample is higher than 10 ppb and at or below 20 ppb, the importer may elect to test the second sample or rework the lot and resubmit it for testing. If the importer chooses to proceed with testing the second sample, the results from testing both samples will be averaged. If the average results are at or below 15 ppb, the lot may be certified negative for aflatoxin. If the average results are higher than 15 ppb, the lot fails and the accredited lab will submit a failed lot notification report to the importer, Customs, and USDA. If the importer chooses to rework the lot after the first sample is analyzed, the lot will again be subject to sampling and testing as if it were a new lot. If an aflatoxin inspection certificate is issued certifying that a lot is negative for aflatoxin at any stage of the sequential testing (meaning that the lot's aflatoxin content is below the maximum threshold), the certification will state that the lot meets the § 8e import aflatoxin requirements. The certification will expire after 12 months.
Upon notification of any failed lot, the importer will work with Customs to determine the appropriate disposition of the pistachios. Pistachios that fail to meet the aflatoxin requirements will be required to be sold for non-human consumption, exported to another destination with a higher aflatoxin tolerance, or disposed of under the supervision of Customs, and the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Programs could be called upon to verify disposals. Any costs associated with certifying a disposal will be paid by the importer.
Although reworking and retesting of a failed lot is not required, importers may opt to take those steps, which would provide them with an opportunity to secure a return for their imported product while maintaining the integrity of the aflatoxin requirements. The alternative would be to dispose of the lot through proper channels as described above. The rework procedures described below are the same as or comparable to those required for domestic pistachios under the order.
Importers may comingle certified lots with other certified lots of pistachios. However, to maintain the integrity of certified lots, the comingling of certified and uncertified lots of pistachios will cause the loss of certification for the comingled lots.
Section 983.70 of the marketing order provides that domestic handlers may handle pistachios free of the regulatory and assessment provisions of the order if such pistachios are handled in quantities not exceeding 5,000 dried pounds during any production year. The purpose of this provision is to provide an exemption from the requirements of the order for small quantities of pistachios such as those that are grown for home or personal use. Further, this exemption is applied on a production year basis. Accordingly, under the import regulation, a comparable 5,000-pound annual exemption applies to importers of pistachios for human consumption. Also, substandard pistachios imported for use in non-human consumption outlets are not subject to the proposed aflatoxin regulations.
Any importer who violates any provision of the import regulation may be subject to a forfeiture in the amount prescribed in section 608a(5) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 601-674), or, upon conviction, penalties in the amounts prescribed in section 608c(14) of the Act, or to both forfeiture and penalty. False representation to any agency of the United States on any matter within its jurisdiction, knowing it to be false, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides for a fine or imprisonment or both.
Safeguard procedures in the form of importer and receiver reporting requirements will be used to ensure that substandard pistachios imported for purposes other than human consumption are used only in authorized outlets exempt from the aflatoxin regulations. The safeguard procedures are comparable to those currently specified for the importation of other exempted commodities. Under the new regulation, importers and receivers of pistachios for other than human consumption purposes are required to complete and submit to USDA an Importer's Exempt Commodity Form (Form FV-6), the generic form used by importers and receivers of other exempted commodities. The information provided on Form FV-6 will be used by USDA to track pistachios marketed for exempted uses.
This rule establishes maximum aflatoxin tolerance levels and mandatory testing and certification requirements for lots of pistachios offered for importation into the United States. The import quality requirements will be implemented in accordance with section 8e of the Act. These provisions are intended to ensure that pistachios imported into the United States for the purposes of domestic human consumption are of a quality comparable to those pistachios regulated under Marketing Order No. 983 and contain no more than 15 ppb of aflatoxin.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
Small agricultural service firms, which include importers and receivers, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.
AMS estimates that there are approximately 64 importers and receivers who handled shipments of pistachios into the United States between 2007 and 2009. About 10 of the 64 firms are also substantially engaged in the marketing of U.S. grown pistachios, and are large firms according
Turkey and Iran have historically been the source of most pistachios imported into the U.S. Turkish pistachios are imported predominantly in the shell, while Iranian pistachios are typically imported shelled. Imported pistachios also come from Italy, China, Switzerland, France, Australia, Hong Kong, and Italy. Most pistachios imported from other nations are also shelled. This import regulation establishes protocols for aflatoxin analysis for both inshell and shelled pistachios.
Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including pistachios, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, quality, size, and maturity requirements.
This rule establishes minimum quality requirements for lots of imported pistachios by specifying a maximum aflatoxin tolerance level as well as aflatoxin testing and certification requirements. Importers are responsible for arranging for the required transportation, storage, sampling, testing, and certification of such pistachios prior to importation. Sampling is conducted by the Federal or Federal-State inspection services, and aflatoxin testing and certification is performed by USDA or USDA-accredited laboratories.
These import aflatoxin testing and certification requirements are the same as or comparable to those implemented under the order regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Pistachios failing to meet the aflatoxin requirements on initial analysis may be reworked and retested, exported to another destination with a higher aflatoxin tolerance, or disposed of in authorized outlets under the supervision of Customs, with assistance from the inspection service if necessary, to verify proper disposal of substandard nuts. Procedures for these activities are also described. Lots of imported pistachios that fail aflatoxin testing may be diverted to certain non-human consumption outlets and are subject to the safeguard provisions of § 999.500. Some reporting and recordkeeping requirements also are included in the pistachio import regulation. These requirements also are the same as or comparable to those implemented under the order.
The cost of testing pistachios for aflatoxin varies, depending on such factors as the location of the port of entry and the size of the lot to be tested. For purposes of estimating an average per-pound testing expense for imported pistachios, this analysis assumes an average lot equal to one container load weighing 16,000 pounds of inshell pistachios arriving at the Port of San Francisco and being tested for aflatoxin by an accredited laboratory in Fresno, California.
In the following example computation of testing costs, there are four elements: (1) A fee (at an hourly rate) charged by the inspection service to draw and prepare the sample, (2) overnight shipping, (3) a fee charged by the laboratory to determine the level of aflatoxin, and (4) the “unit value” of the quantity of pistachios drawn for the sample. The unit value used in this example computation is the average for the last 3 complete marketing years for which import data are available, 2007/08-2009/10. The unit value for the 3-year period ($1.68 per pound) is computed by dividing the average 3-year import value ($2,900,000) by the average import quantity (1,725,000 pounds). Data are from FAS.
The inspection service fee of $74 per hour is multiplied by the estimated time of 2 hours to draw a sample, for a cost of $148. The overnight shipping cost and laboratory fee are estimated at $200 and $100, respectively.
The next step in the example computation is value of pistachios drawn for the sample. Under the new section 996.600, in section d) Sampling, the weight of a lot sample is 16 kilograms (equivalent to 35.3 pounds) for a lot weighing between 11,001 and 22,000 pounds. Multiplying 35.3 pounds times the unit value of imported pistachios ($1.68) yields a value of the tested sample of approximately $59. Assuming that aflatoxin certification of the 16,000-pound lot requires the testing of only one sample, the sum of the four cost elements would be $507, or approximately 3.2 cents per pound (approximately two percent of the unit value of imported pistachios).
It is likely that a pistachio lot arriving at the Port of San Francisco would be transported to an inland handling facility to await sampling and testing and would incur no additional storage costs. However, if the lot is stored at a Customs warehouse near the port, storage fees ranging between $100 and $500 per day could be incurred while the samples are analyzed. Analysis and certification is estimated to require between two to five days. Assuming a three day turnaround for a lot incurring $200 per day storage fees, approximately $600, or 3.75 cents per pound of pistachios could be added to the testing expense described above.
Regarding the impact of this rule on affected entities, this final rule establishes an import regulation for pistachios as provided in section 8e of the Act. The import regulation requires importers to arrange for the testing and certification of all imports of pistachios for human consumption prior to importation. There are some increased costs to importers associated with the testing and certification of imported product. However, it is expected that consumer satisfaction, and therefore demand, will be increased by regulating imports and domestic product uniformly. The additional costs are expected to be offset by the benefits of supplying the U.S. marketplace with only high quality pistachios. As mentioned above, these import requirements are the same as or comparable to those established for U.S. domestic pistachio shipments. The domestic industry recently adopted aflatoxin sampling and testing procedures that align with the Codex Alimentarius Commission's (Codex) sampling plan (75 FR 43045; July 23, 2010). The Codex sampling plan is used by the European Commission as its regulation for the importation of tree nuts into the European Union. Thus, these import requirements are comparable to those widely recognized by international pistachio markets.
Industry information suggests that when aflatoxin levels in imported lots of pistachios exceed the FDA maximum tolerance of 20 ppb, the levels are generally significantly higher than 20 ppb. Very few lots test between 15 ppb and 20 ppb. It is anticipated that most imported lots will test below the proposed 15 ppb tolerance. Thus, establishing a maximum aflatoxin tolerance of 15 ppb for imported pistachios is not expected to have a significant impact on trade.
This import regulation requires importers to report any pistachio lots that fail aflatoxin testing and any lots that are reworked or disposed on two new forms. It is estimated that the total reporting burden associated with these two forms is 11.6 hours for the industry as a whole. The new reporting forms require the minimum amount of information necessary to effectively
The alternative to this action is to continue to allow pistachios to be imported without having to meet aflatoxin requirements that are the same as or comparable to those established for domestic pistachios. However, the import regulation is necessary to ensure that imported and domestic pistachios for human consumption in the United States are of uniformly high quality. Further, the Act requires that import regulations be issued whenever marketing order regulations are established for pistachios. Therefore, this alternative is not appropriate.
In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), forms FV-249 Imported Pistachios—Failed Lot Notification Report and FV-251 Imported Pistachios—Rework and Failed Lot Disposition Report, were approved by OMB and assigned OMB Number 0581-0278 on November 23, 2011. Following the publication of this final rule, AMS will submit a request to OMB to merge these two forms with the forms currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0215, Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Additionally, except for the applicable domestic regulations, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. Reports and forms required under the pistachio import regulation will be reviewed periodically to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
A proposed rule regarding this action was published in the
Four comments were received during the comment period in response to the proposal. All four commenters were supportive of the proposed regulation. One commenter, representing the domestic pistachio industry, noted that the proposed provisions for reworking and retesting imported lots that test positive for aflatoxin provided a safeguard against testing anomalies so that shipments are not unfairly rejected while ensuring a flow of high quality pistachios into the stream of commerce. Two private citizen commenters urged USDA to facilitate the timely and uniform sampling and testing of imported lots upon entry to optimize product freshness and marketability. Import regulations are applied uniformly at all U.S. ports of entry, and Federal and Federal-state inspection protocols are consistent throughout the U.S. Similarly, all laboratories authorized to participate in aflatoxin testing for imported pistachios have been approved by USDA and conform to uniform analytical standards and practices. The sampling and testing of imported lots will be handled with the same timeliness and integrity applied to domestic lots.
The proposed regulation named a commercially available testing kit as one option for aflatoxin analysis in imported pistachios. One commenter suggested that any AOAC-approved method, rather than a particular product, be specified in the regulation to encourage the ongoing development of improved technology and ensure its availability to the industry. USDA does not intend to endorse the use of specific commercial products. However, as mentioned above, to ensure analytical testing uniformity and integrity, USDA has currently approved only two methods for aflatoxin testing in domestic and imported pistachios. Both are included in the import regulation. Accordingly, § 999.600(e)(1) of the import regulation has been modified by replacing the name of the specific testing kit with a generic description of the approved method. USDA would consider further modifications to the regulation as new analytical methods are tested and approved.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information provided by the industry and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Dates, Filberts, Food grades and standards, Imports, Nuts, Prunes, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Walnuts.
For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR part 999 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(a) Each person who imports or receives any of the commodities listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section shall file an “Importer's Exempt Commodity Form” (FV-6) with the Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, and shall provide a printed copy of the completed Form FV-6 to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regional Director or District Director, as applicable, at the port at which the customs entry is filed. A printed copy shall accompany the lot to the exempt outlet specified on the form. Any lot of any commodity offered for inspection or aflatoxin testing and, all or a portion thereof, subsequently imported as exempt under this provision shall also be reported on an “Importer's Exempt Commodity Form.” Such form, accompanied by a copy of the applicable inspection certificate, shall be provided to the Marketing Order and Agreement Division. The applicable commodities are:
(1) Dates which are donated to needy persons, prisoners or Native Americans on reservations;
(2) Walnuts which are: Green walnuts (so immature that they cannot be used for drying and sale as dried walnuts); walnuts used in non-competitive outlets such as use by charitable institutions, relief agencies, governmental agencies for school lunch programs, and
(3) Substandard pistachios which are for non-human consumption purposes.
(d) All FV-6 forms and other correspondence regarding entry of 8e commodities must be submitted online, mailed or faxed to the Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone (202) 720-4607; or FAX (202) 720-5698. FV-6 forms submitted by FAX must be followed by a mailed, original copy of the FV-6.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Prior to, or upon, arrival of a pistachio lot at a port of entry, the importer shall provide a copy of the Customs entry documentation for the pistachio lot or lots to the Inspection Service office that will draw and prepare samples of the pistachio shipment. More than one lot may be listed on one entry document. The documentation shall include: The Customs entry number; the container number(s) or other identification of the lot(s); the weight of the pistachios in each lot being imported, the location where the lot will be made available for sampling; and a contact name or telephone number at the testing location. The Inspection Service shall sign, stamp, and return the entry document to the importer. The importer shall provide a copy of the relevant entry documentation and such other identifying information as may be requested for each pistachio lot to the inspector at the time samples are drawn and prepared.
(2) All sampling for aflatoxin testing shall be performed by USDA-authorized inspectors in accordance with USDA rules and regulations governing the inspection and certification of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other products (7 CFR part 51). The cost of each such sampling and related certification shall be borne by the applicant. Whenever pistachios are offered for sampling and testing, the applicant shall furnish any labor and pay any costs incurred for storing, moving, and opening containers as may be necessary for proper sampling and testing. The applicant should make advance arrangements with the Inspection Service to avoid delay in scheduling sampling. Importers may make arrangements for required sampling by contacting the Inspection Service office closest to where the pistachios will be made available for sampling. For questions regarding inspection services, a list of Federal or Federal-State Inspection Program offices, or for further assistance, importers may contact: Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1536-S, Washington, DC, 20250; Telephone: (202) 720-5870; Fax: (202) 720-0393.
(3) Lot samples shall be drawn from each lot of pistachios designated for aflatoxin testing, and individual test samples shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of, an inspector. Each sample shall be drawn and prepared in accordance with the sample size requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2 below. The gross weight of the inshell lot and test samples for aflatoxin testing and the minimum number of incremental samples required are shown in Table 1. The gross weight of the kernel lot and test samples for aflatoxin testing and the minimum number of incremental samples required is shown in Table 2. If more than one test sample is necessary, the test samples shall be designated by the inspector as Test Sample #1 and Test Sample #2. Each sample shall be placed in a suitable container, with the lot number clearly
(e)
(1) Aflatoxin test samples shall be received and logged by a USDA or USDA-accredited laboratory, and each test sample shall be prepared and analyzed using High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or the AOAC-approved immunoaffinity column with direct fluorometry method. The aflatoxin level shall be calculated on a kernel weight basis.
(2) Lots that require a single test sample will be certified as “negative” on the aflatoxin inspection certificate if the sample has an aflatoxin level at or below 15 ppb. If the aflatoxin level is above 15 ppb, the lot fails and the laboratory shall fill out an
(3) Lots that require two test samples will be certified as “negative” on the aflatoxin inspection certificate if Test Sample #1 has an aflatoxin level at or below 10 ppb. If the aflatoxin level of Test Sample #1 is above 20 ppb, the lot fails and the laboratory shall fill out an
(4) If an importer does not elect to use Test Sample #2 for certification purposes, the importer may request that the laboratory return the sample to the importer.
(f)
(1) The date and place of sampling and testing.
(2) The name of the applicant.
(3) The Customs entry number pertaining to the lot or shipment covered by the certificate.
(4) The quantity and identifying marks of the lot tested.
(5) The aflatoxin level of the lot, stated on a kernel weight basis.
(6) The statement, if applicable: “Meets U.S. import requirements under section 8e of the AMA Act of 1937.”
(7) If the lot fails to meet the import requirements, a statement to that effect and the reasons therefore.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pool Plant provisions of the Mideast Federal milk marketing order regulating distributing plants physically located within the marketing area, with a Class I utilization of at least 30 percent and with combined route disposition and transfers of at least 50 percent distributed into Federal milk marketing areas, as Pool Distributing Plants under the terms of the order. More than the required number of producers for the Mideast marketing area approved the issuance of the final order as amended.
Erin C. Taylor, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231-Room 2963, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-7183, email address:
This final rule more adequately defines the plants, and the producer milk associated with those plants, that serve the fluid needs
Accordingly, this final rule adopts proposed amendments detailed in the final decision (77 FR 38536).
This administrative action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
The amendment proposed herein has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have a retroactive effect.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (the Act), provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c (15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is considered a “small business” if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees. For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are “small businesses,” the $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a production guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be received by dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for most “small” dairy farms. For purposes of determining a handler's size, if the plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will be considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500 employees.
During October 2011, the time of the hearing, there were 6,651 dairy farms pooled on the Mideast order. Of these, approximately 6,169 dairy farms (or 92.8 percent) were considered small businesses. During the same month, there were 51 handler operations associated with the Mideast order (25 fully regulated handlers, 8 partially regulated handlers, 2 producer-handlers, and 16 exempt handlers). Of these, approximately 38 handlers (or 74.5 percent) were considered small businesses.
The Pool Plant provisions of the Mideast order define which plants have an association with serving the fluid milk market demand of the Mideast marketing area, and therefore determine the producers and the producer milk that can participate in the marketwide pool as well as share in the Class I market revenues. The proposed amendment adopted in this final rule will fully regulate some handlers that currently fall under partial regulation. As a result, these handlers will be required to account to the Mideast order marketwide pool. Consequently, all producers whose milk is pooled and priced under the terms of the Mideast order will benefit from the additional revenue contributed to the marketwide pool by the newly-regulated distributing plant. The Department anticipates that while these additional monies will be shared with all producers serving the market, the amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A review of reporting requirements was completed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). It was determined that the amendment will have no impact on reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements because it will remain identical to the current requirements. No new forms are proposed and no additional reporting requirements are necessary.
This notice does not require additional information collection that will necessitate clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) beyond currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data used to complete the approved forms are routinely used in most business transactions. The forms require only a minimal amount of information which can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than the industry average.
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the order was first issued and when it was amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein.
A public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the handling of milk in the Mideast marketing area. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR part 900).
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The said order as hereby amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The parity prices of milk, as determined pursuant to section 2 of the Act, are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market supply and demand for milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The minimum prices specified in the order as hereby amended are such prices as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
(3) The said order as hereby amended regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, a marketing agreement upon which a hearing has been held.
The amendment to this order is known to handlers. The final decision containing the proposed amendment to this order was issued on June 22, 2012, and published in the
The changes that result from this amendment will not require extensive preparation or substantial alteration in the method of operation for handlers. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that good cause exists for making this amendment effective following October 1, 2012. (Section 553(d), Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559.)
It is hereby determined that:
(1) The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative associations specified in section 8c(9) of the AMAA) of more than 50 percent of the milk, which is marketed within the specified marketing areas, to sign a proposed marketing agreement, tends to prevent the effectuation of the declared policy of the AMAA;
(2) The issuance of this order amending the Mideast order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the AMAA of advancing the interests of producers as defined in the orders as hereby amended; and
(3) The issuance of this order amending the Mideast order is favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were engaged in the production of milk for sale in the respective marketing areas.
Milk marketing orders.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1033 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
(a) A distributing plant, other than a plant qualified as a pool plant pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section or § __.7(b) of any other Federal milk order, from which during the month 30 percent or more of the total quantity of fluid milk products physically received at the plant (excluding concentrated milk received from another plant by agreement for other than class I use) are disposed of as route disposition or are transferred in the form of packaged fluid milk products to other distributing plants. At least 25 percent of such route disposition and transfers must be to outlets in the marketing area. Plants located within the marketing area that meet the 30 percent route disposition standard contained above, and have combined route disposition and transfers of at least 50 percent into Federal order marketing areas will be regulated as a distributing plant in this order.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, -50R, and -60 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report of a quality escape of about 8,000 2nd stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) rotor blades, manufactured by Honeywell Chihuahua Manufacturing Operation since 2009. This AD requires removing and inspecting certain LPT2 rotor blades. We are issuing this AD to correct an unsafe condition caused by these blades installed on these engines.
This AD is effective October 1, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 1, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; Web site:
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD will affect 3,000 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform the record review, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. For an estimated 500 engines with discrepant blades, blade rework cost was estimated at $2,380 per engine with a replacement parts cost about $1,100 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $1,430,100.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(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),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 1, 2012.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, -50R, and -60 turbofan engines:
(i) With an engine model number and serial number (S/N) listed in Table 4 of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5221, Revision 0, dated November 11, 2010, or
(ii) With 2nd stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) rotor assembly part numbers (P/Ns) 3060608-2, 3060608-3, or 3060608-5 that had any LPT2 rotor blades P/N 3075424-2 replaced between March 2009 and September 2010, inclusive, or that had any LPT2 rotor blades P/N 3075424-3 replaced between July 2010 and September 2010, inclusive.
This AD was prompted by a report of a quality escape of about 8,000 LPT2 rotor blades, manufactured by Honeywell Chihuahua Manufacturing Operation since 2009. During LPT rotor acceleration, these blades may contact and damage the 3rd stage LPT (LPT3) nozzle seal carrier that may subsequently fatigue and contact the adjacent rotor and damage the rotor. Also, these blades could deform the blade retainers, which could lead to blade movement that may cause rotor damage. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition caused by these blades installed on these engines.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the next major periodic inspection, not to exceed 3,000 hours time-since-new, or within 5 years after the effective date of this AD, or at the next access, whichever occurs first, do the following using Section 3.0, Accomplishment Instructions, of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5221, Revision 0, dated November 11, 2010:
(i) Remove any suspect LPT2 rotor blades from service.
(ii) Inspect suspect LPT2 rotor blades.
The Manager, Los Angeles Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
For purposes of this AD, next access is defined as when the LPT module is disassembled.
For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5221, Revision 0, dated November 11, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Honeywell International Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; Web site:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or “FTC”) is amending its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by updating the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (the “Registry”) as required by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007.
Requests for copies of this document should be sent to: Public Reference Branch, Federal Trade Commission, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. Copies of this document are also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site:
Ami Joy Dziekan, (202) 326-2648, BCP, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room H-246, Washington, DC 20580.
To comply with the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-188, 122 Stat. 635) (“Act”), the Commission is amending the TSR by updating the fees entities are charged for accessing the Registry as follows: the revised rule increases the annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data from $56 to $58 per area code; increases the fee per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period from $28 to $29; and increases the maximum amount that will be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data from $15,503 to $15,962.
These increases are in accordance with the Act, which specifies that beginning after fiscal year 2009, the dollar amounts charged shall be increased by an amount equal to the amounts specified in the Act, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the average of the monthly consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) (“CPI”) for the most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds the CPI for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008. The Act also states that any increase shall be rounded to the nearest dollar and that there shall be no increase in the dollar amounts if the change in the CPI is less than one percent. For fiscal year 2009, the Act specified that the original annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data was $54 per area code, or $27 per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period, and that the maximum amount that would be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data would be $14,850.
The determination whether a fee change is required and the amount of the fee change involves a two-step process. First, to determine whether a fee change is required, we measure the change in the CPI from the time of the previous increase in fees. There was an increase in the fees for fiscal year 2012. Accordingly, we calculated the change in the CPI since last year, and the increase was 2.93 percent. Because this change is over the one percent threshold, the fees will change for fiscal year 2013.
Second, to determine how much the fees should increase this fiscal year, we use the calculation specified by the Act set forth above, the percentage change in the baseline CPI applied to the original fees for fiscal year 2009. The average value of the CPI for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 was 211.702; the average value for July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 was 227.565, an increase of 7.49 percent. Applying the 7.49 percent increase to the base amount from fiscal year 2009, leads to an increase from $56 to $58 in the fee from last year for access to a single area code of data for a full year for fiscal year 2013. The actual amount is $58.04, but when rounded, pursuant to the Act, the amount is $58. The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year increases to $29.02 (rounded to $29). The maximum amount charged increases to $15,962.26 (rounded to $15,962).
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the Amended TSR and assigned the following existing OMB Control Number: 3084-0097. The amendments outlined in this Final Rule pertain only to the fee provision (§ 310.8) of the Amended TSR and will not establish or alter any record keeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements elsewhere in the Amended TSR.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Trade practices.
Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 6101-6108; 15 U.S.C. 6151-6155.
(c) The annual fee, which must be paid by any person prior to obtaining access to the National Do Not Call Registry, is $58 for each area code of data accessed, up to a maximum of $15,962;
(d) Each person who pays, either directly or through another person, the annual fee set forth in § 310.8(c), each person excepted under § 310.8(c) from paying the annual fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), will be provided a unique account number that will allow that person to access the registry data for the selected area codes at any time for the twelve month period beginning on the first day of the month in which the person paid the fee (“the annual period”). To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the first six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under § 310.8(c) must first pay $58 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the second six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under § 310.8(c) must first pay $29 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. The payment of the additional fee will permit the person to access the additional area codes of data for the remainder of the annual period.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is amending its regulations to allow the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to exercise, for a one-year period following the effective date of this rule, the authority to seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled substance offenses. Many years of experience have demonstrated that forfeiting the assets of criminals is an essential tool in combating criminal activity and provides law enforcement with the capacity to dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function after the conviction and incarceration of individual offenders. Moreover, administrative forfeiture permits the expedient and effective use of this crucial law enforcement tool.
This rule is effective February 25, 2013.
Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, telephone: (202) 648-7105.
The Attorney General has delegated to ATF the authority to investigate, seize, and forfeit property involved in a violation or attempted violation within its investigative jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice believes that forfeiting the assets of criminals is an essential tool in combating criminal activity and provides law enforcement with the capacity to dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function after conviction and incarceration. The Department further believes that administrative forfeiture permits the expedient and effective use of this crucial law enforcement tool.
An uncontested administrative forfeiture can be perfected in 60-90 days for minimal cost, including the statutorily required advertisement and notice by registered mail. Conversely, the costs associated with judicial forfeiture can amount to hundreds or thousands of dollars and the judicial process generally can take anywhere from 6 months to years. In the meantime, the government incurs additional costs if the property requires storage or maintenance until a final order of forfeiture can be obtained.
In recognition of the link between drug trafficking and many criminal organizations, the Attorney General has authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize and forfeit property under 21 U.S.C. 881.
ATF joined the Department of Justice in January 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296). One of the primary missions of the ATF is to combat firearm-related violent crime. The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established. The Attorney General, however, has not previously delegated to ATF title 21 seizure and forfeiture authority. On review of the current role and mission of ATF within the Department of Justice, the Attorney General has decided to authorize a temporary delegation of title 21 seizure and forfeiture authority to determine whether such authority can enhance the effectiveness of ATF in the investigation of violent crimes involving firearms. Consequently, by this final rule the Attorney General is delegating administrative seizure and forfeiture authority under 21 U.S.C. 881 to the ATF for a trial period of one year. The language in this rule delegating administrative forfeiture authority to ATF is modeled after the language in the FBI authorization. ATF may continue to exercise this delegated authority for all property in its possession on or before the end of the one-year period, even if this delegation is not otherwise extended.
This rule amends the regulations in 28 CFR part 0 to authorize the Director of ATF to exercise, for a period of one year from the effective date of this final rule, the authority to seize, forfeit, and remit or mitigate the forfeiture of property in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 881.
Forfeiting the assets of criminals is an essential tool in combating criminal activity and provides law enforcement with the capacity to dismantle criminal organizations that otherwise would continue to function after conviction and incarceration of individual participants. The Attorney General has decided to adopt a one-year delegation of administrative seizure and forfeiture authority to permit ATF to make expedient and effective use of this crucial law enforcement tool in the investigation of organizations and
Notice and comment rulemaking is not required for this final rule. Under the APA, “rules of agency organization, procedure or practice,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), that do not “affect[] individual rights and obligations,”
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.,” This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters as described by Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by that Executive Order.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”
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 Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
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 one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804. 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 the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a rule for purposes of the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 0 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.
(b)(1) * * *
(2) Seize, forfeit, and remit or mitigate the forfeiture of property in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 881 and applicable Department of Justice regulations. This authority is effective during the 12-month period beginning on February 25, 2013 and ending on February 25, 2014, except that it may continue to be exercised after February 25, 2014 with respect to any property in the Bureau's possession on or before that date.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary
This deviation is effective from 8 p.m. on September 26, 2012 until 5:30 a.m. on October 15, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket USCG-2012-0794 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone (757) 398-6422, email
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns and operates this vertical lift bridge, has requested a temporary deviation to facilitate cable replacement on the structure.
Under the regular operating schedule, the bridge opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5, except that under 33 CFR 117.822, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the second Saturday of July and from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the first or second Sunday of November every year.
The Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge, at mile 26.8, at Wilmington, NC, has vertical clearances in the open and closed positions of 135 feet and 65 feet above mean high water, respectively.
Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be closed to navigation beginning at 8 p.m. on September 26, 2012 until and including 5:30 a.m. on October 1, 2012, and again from 8 p.m. on October 10, 2012 until and including 5:30 a.m. on October 15, 2012. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Cape Fear River. The drawbridge will be unable to open in the event of an emergency.
Typical vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River includes a variety of vessels from freighters, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may continue to do so at anytime.
The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users. The Coast Guard will inform all users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.
The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S41 Swingbridge across the Wando River mile 10.0, at Cainhoy, Berkeley County, South Carolina. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This deviation will allow the S41 Swingbridge to open on the hour and half-hour which is anticipated to improve vessel traffic flow.
This deviation is effective from 8 p.m. on September 1, 2012 through 5 p.m. on December 31, 2012.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 28, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0774 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Michael Lieberum, Seventh District Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 415-6744, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0774), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
The S41 Swingbridge across Wando River mile 10.0, Cainhoy, Berkeley County, South Carolina has a vertical clearance of 6 feet in the closed position. The operating schedule as published in 33 CFR 117.939 states the draw of the S41 bridge shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. This regulation has been in effect since 1965.
Local mariners have asked the Coast Guard to evaluate the operating schedule to determine if more frequent openings would improve the accessibility of the waterway to maritime navigation. An estimated 400 recreational boats use the waterway in the local area. However, boaters upriver from the bridge have stated that the bridge's low vertical clearance and requirement for 12-hours notice prevents boaters from accessing waterways, like Charleston harbor and the ocean, on the downriver side of the bridge. The South Carolina Department of Transportation has advised that approximately 1000 to 3000 vehicles per day cross this bridge. The Coast Guard anticipates daily bridge openings during this test a positive impact on navigation with the increased use of the waterway by vessel traffic.
This deviation is effective from 8 p.m. on September 1, 2012 through 5 p.m. on December 31, 2012. The S41 Swingbridge shall open on the hour and the half hour, 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week.
Following the test deviation period, the Coast Guard will review the bridge logs from the bridge owner to evaluate the impact of this test on local marine traffic. The Coast Guard will also consider all comments and related materials submitted in response to this test deviation. The Coast Guard will then evaluate whether a permanent change to the operating schedule of the S41 Swingbridge is necessary, and under what conditions the bridge should open.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Denial of petition to reconsider.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is denying the petition of Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc. (“POP Diesel”) to reconsider the final rules establishing emissions standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles.
This denial is effective August 27, 2012.
EPA's docket for this action is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Steven Silverman, Office of General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5523; email address:
On September 15, 2011, the EPA issued final rules establishing standards limiting emissions of CO
POP Diesel petitioned EPA to reconsider its greenhouse standards. Because the petition does not state grounds which satisfy the requirements of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, and does not provide substantial support for the argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised, EPA is denying the petition.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states that: “Only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed. If the Administrator refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person may seek review of such refusal in the United States court of appeals for the appropriate circuit. Such reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule. The effectiveness of the rule may be stayed pending such reconsideration, however, by the Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months.”
Thus, for reconsideration to be mandated, a petition for reconsideration must show why the objection or claim could not have been presented during the comment period—either because it was impracticable to raise the objection during that time or because the grounds for raising the objection arose after the period for public comment but within 60 days of publication of the final action (i.e. “the time specified for judicial review”). To be of central relevance to the outcome of a rule, an objection must provide substantial support for the argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011) and other actions there cited.
Because all of the objections or claims raised in POP Diesel's petition could have been presented to EPA during the rulemaking, EPA is denying the request for reconsideration. EPA also finds that the petitioner has not provided substantial support for the argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised and is denying the request for reconsideration for that reason as well.
POP Diesel filed a petition for reconsideration with EPA on November 14, 2011 and supplemented this petition on February 12, 2012. The company produces equipment intended to be installed after-market on diesel engines to permit the engines to operate on 100 percent untransestrified plant oil. February 12 Petition p. 12. The engine starts and shuts down on diesel from an original fuel tank during startup and shutoff but at all other times would run on 100 percent plant oil coming from an auxiliary tank.
The objection raised in POP Diesel's petitions is that EPA failed to adequately consider the so-called rebound effect during the rulemaking. POP Diesel maintains that “[t]he GHG standards will have the effect of making diesel engines less expensive to operate on petroleum fuel, which may, in fact, spur demand and have the result of increasing overall energy consumption and likely, consumption of fossil fuels.” November 14, 2011 Petition p. 15. In its supplement to its original petition, POP Diesel elaborated on this objection, maintaining that the rules would increase GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles due to aspects of the rebound effect not accounted for in EPA's analysis. Specifically, POP Diesel maintains that EPA underestimated the direct rebound effect and that a revised estimate of the direct rebound effect would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions Also, POP Diesel maintains that there are indirect, “embedded energy” (increased energy use as a result of additional goods and services produced) and “frontier” (creation of new, energy-intense products) rebound effects which EPA failed to examine, instead only analyzing direct effects in the form of estimated increase in vehicle miles travelled (and increases in GHG and criteria pollutant emissions associated with that increase). February 12, 2012 Supplemental Petition p. 12. These objections are accompanied by a supporting declaration of Dr. Harry Duston Saunders (a published researcher in energy economics) likewise dated February 12, 2012.
POP Diesel does not address why this objection could not have been raised during the public comment period, as required by section 307(d)(7)(B). EPA discussed the rebound effect at length in the proposed rule. See 75 FR 74152, 74316-20 (November 30, 2010). The proposal included specific discussions of factors affecting the magnitude of the rebound effect, options for quantifying the effect (including aggregate estimates, sector-specific estimates, econometric estimates, and other modeling approaches), as well as quantified estimates of the effect which EPA thereupon applied in estimating the proposed rules' impacts on GHG emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, as well as overall costs and benefits of the proposed program.
A second reason that POP Diesel's objections do not require EPA to reconsider the rule is that the declaration of Dr. Saunders is dated February 12, 2012, outside of the period specified for judicial review—i.e. November 11, 2011. Even if POP Diesel's objections could not have been raised during the public comment period (which is not the case), the grounds for objection did not arise “during the time specified for judicial review”, as required by section 307(d)(7)(B).
POP Diesel also reiterates a number of arguments it already presented to EPA in its comments to the proposed rule. Specifically, the petition maintains that EPA should have evaluated all emission control technologies on a lifecycle basis (“[i]n considering only tailpipe emissions, rather than the full lifecycle GHG emissions of a technology and fuel that would result from a wells-to-wheels analysis, the Regulations arbitrarily favor and disfavor some alternatives over others”, February amended petition p. 7). EPA addressed these issues during the rulemaking. See 75 FR at 74198, 255-56 (proposal); 76 FR at 57246-47 (final rule) and Response to Comment Document at 16-157. EPA's proposal likewise addressed the issues of whether compliance with the standards should be measured on a tailpipe or lifecycle basis, and what if any incentives were appropriate for advanced technologies and alternative fuel vehicles. See 75 FR at 74198, 255-56. Consequently, these are not issues which EPA is compelled to reconsider under section 307(d)(7)(B), since these objections could have been and were raised during the public comment period on the proposed rule. EPA also rejects the substance of the arguments raised in the petitions.
POP Diesel first maintains that EPA underestimated the extent of the direct rebound effect, and that assigning different estimates of rebound effects to different heavy-duty vehicle classes (medium-duty pickups and vans, vocational vehicles, and combination tractors) was arbitrary. Saunders Affidavit paras. 35-36.
These values are based on the best available data and econometric methods
POP Diesel also maintains that EPA should account for the energy and GHG emissions impact associated with the so-called “indirect” rebound effects (distinct from the “direct” rebound effect). These effects could arise from the decline in fuel costs as a result of the rule, which could make goods and services transported by the U.S. trucking industry less expensive. In turn, less expensive goods and services could result in increased consumption of goods and service in the overall economy. Producing extra goods and services requires that more energy be used. This extra energy use can be thought of as “embodied” in the extra goods and services. Hence the term for this type of indirect rebound effect is the “embodied energy” rebound effect. The increased energy use from this type of indirect rebound effect could result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Saunders Affidavit para. 46 Appendix A. A further indirect rebound effect unaccounted for, according to the petition, is the “frontier” rebound effect whereby energy efficiency gains enable creation of completely new products which are themselves energy intensive.
EPA is not aware of any data to indicate that the magnitude of indirect rebound effects, if any, would be significant for this rule. Research on indirect rebound effects is nascent. The magnitude of effects from our rule postulated in the Saunders affidavit has no support in the literature,
POP Diesel requests EPA to re-evaluate the weight given to various alternative technologies and fuels according to a lifecycle approach, and to decouple fuel efficiency policy from GHG emissions policy. February 12 Petition p. 2. In setting emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles, EPA reasonably chose to consider the impact on GHG emissions of the fuels used by the different types of vehicles by measuring the tailpipe emissions of vehicles, including alternative fuel vehicles (which normally emit less GHG emissions than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles).
EPA also does not accept the major premise of POP Diesel's reconsideration petition and rulemaking comments. The company argues that it is arbitrary that EPA has not established greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles premised on use of their technology and its fuel. Under such a standard, the GHG level of a vehicle using POP Diesel would be tailpipe emissions adjusted by a factor reflecting the claimed reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions to produce the POP Diesel fuel. See,
The heavy-duty vehicle and engine GHG standards are fuel neutral in that they do not themselves require or assume that a vehicle or engine will be operated on a particular type of fuel. If POP Diesel's technology helps manufacturers reduce tailpipe GHG emissions, then it will have the same opportunities as any other technology that manufacturers will use to meet the standards. Moreover, POP Diesel has not correctly characterized the agencies' consideration of the interaction between the RFS program and the heavy-duty GHG standards. As explained in the final rule, the tailpipe performance measurement of alternative fuels provides sufficient incentives for their use. While the agencies noted that incentives in the RFS pointed to a lack of a need for further incentives, the rule's treatment of alternative fuels was not premised on each alternative fuel being covered by the RFS Standard.
Only where the vehicle or engine technology inherently demands a certain type of fuel do the standards account for that fuel use, by specifying the calculation procedure used to determine tailpipe emissions. This is the case with electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, where the technology itself necessitates use of electricity rather than petroleum-based fuels.
Even if EPA were to assume that POP Diesel's claim of lifecycle emissions reductions are valid, and considered setting a vehicle emissions standard that assumed or required use of the POP Diesel technology and fuel, POP Diesel admits this would in fact lead to an increase in the actual GHG emissions from the vehicle. The only decrease in emissions would come from the claimed reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions that POP Diesel says would occur with use of their fuel. That would amount to adopting a vehicle emissions standard to promote a vehicle technology that does not reduce but instead increases the GHG emissions of the vehicle. The vehicle emissions standard would take that approach solely as a mechanism to mandate the use of a certain diesel fuel, based on emissions impacts associated with the fuel, not the vehicle. This would dramatically distort the purpose and structure of the
A further reason this heavy-duty rule does not regulate GHG emissions from a lifecycle perspective, or include explicit consideration of plant-based fuels like the one utilized by POP Diesel's technology, is that it would no longer be possible to establish harmonized, performance-based tailpipe GHG emissions standards (EPA) and fuel efficiency standards (NHTSA). As discussed throughout the final rule, close coordination in this first heavy-duty rule enabled EPA and NHTSA to promulgate complementary standards that appropriately allow manufacturers to build one set of vehicles to comply with both agencies' regulations. See,
Finally, the petition maintains that EPA should impose corporate fleet averages for GHG emissions, asserting that EPA did so only for medium-duty engines and vehicles.
Accordingly, because POP Diesel has not stated grounds requiring or justifying reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) EPA is denying its petition.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
FMCSA withdraws its June 27, 2012, direct final rule eliminating the quarterly financial reporting requirements for certain for-hire motor carriers of property (Form QFR) and for-hire motor carriers of passengers (Form MP-1). After reviewing the adverse comment received from SJ Consulting Group in response to the direct final rule, the agency has determined that it would be inappropriate to allow the direct final rule to take effect. The FMCSA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future proposing the elimination of the quarterly financial reporting requirements for Form QFR and Form MP-1.
The direct final rule published at 77 FR 38211, June 27, 2012 is withdrawn, effective August 27, 2012.
Ms. Vivian Oliver, Office of Research and Information Technology, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone 202-366-2974; email
To view comments, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
On June 27, 2012, FMCSA published a direct final rule proposing to eliminate the quarterly financial reporting requirements for certain for-hire motor carriers of property (Form QFR) and for-hire motor carriers of passengers (Form MP-1), if no adverse comments were received by July 27, 2012. After
SJ Consulting Group stated that it uses the quarterly financial information to advise motor carriers, shippers, and persons interested in buying motor carriers. It argued that the quarterly reports provide useful insight into the U.S. trucking industry, such as operating statistics that are not available from other public sources, particularly for private carriers. Although SJ Consulting conceded that says some data on general demand and pricing trends are available from other sources, it argued that quarterly data on the profitability of carriers are essential in providing safe and timely service to shippers, estimating future growth rates, and assessing opportunities for profitable investment in the trucking industry. SJ Consulting has used Form QFR reports for these purposes for many years.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
FMCSA confirms the effective date for its July 16, 2012, direct final rule concerning the period during which household goods (HHG) motor carriers must retain documentation of an individual shipper's waiver of receipt of printed copies of consumer protection materials. The direct final rule harmonized the retention period with other document retention requirements applicable to HHG motor carriers. FMCSA also amended the regulations to clarify that a HHG motor carrier is not required to retain waiver documentation from any individual shippers for whom the carrier does not actually provide services. The Agency did not receive any comments in response to the direct final rule and confirms the November 13, 2012, effective date of the rule.
The effective date for the direct final rule published in the
The docket for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2011-0313) is available for inspection at
Mr. Brodie Mack, FMCSA, Household Goods Team Leader, Commercial Enforcement and Investigations Division at (202) 385-2400 or by email at
On July 16, 2012, FMCSA published a direct final rule amending its regulations at 49 CFR part 375. The rule reduced the retention period in 49 CFR 375.213(e)(3) from three years to one year for signed receipts documenting an individual shipper's waiver of physical receipt of the consumer protection publications “Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move,” and “Ready to Move?—Tips for a Successful Interstate Move.” The change harmonized this requirement with other requirements in part 375 that require HHG motor carriers to retain shipping documents for only one year. The rule also clarified a HHG motor carrier that obtains a signed waiver from a shipper is required to comply with the retention requirements in § 375.213(e)(3) only if the carrier actually provides moving services to the shipper.
FMCSA used the Agency's direct final rule procedures (75 FR 29915, May 28, 2010) because it was a routine and noncontroversial amendment, and the Agency did not expect any adverse comments. The direct final rule advised the public that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, was received by August 15, 2012, the Agency would provide notice confirming the effective date. Because the Agency did not receive any comments to the docket by August 15, 2012, the direct final rule will become effective November 13, 2012.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) amends the definition of “gross combination weight rating” (GCWR) in our regulations. The definition currently prescribes how the GCWR is calculated if the vehicle manufacturer does not include the information on the vehicle certification label required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Agency has determined the definition should not include what is essentially guidance that is difficult for the motor carrier and enforcement communities to use. Therefore, FMCSA amends this definition to state that the GCWR is the value specified by the commercial motor vehicle manufacturer.
This rule is effective October 26, 2012, unless an adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, is either submitted to our online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Tom Kelly, Office of Enforcement and Program Delivery, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-1812 or via email at
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2012-0156), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comment and material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. As a reminder, FMCSA will only consider adverse comments as defined in 49 CFR 389.39(b) and explained below.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
FMCSA publishes this amendment to parts 383 and 390 under the direct final rule procedures in 49 CFR 389.11 and 389.39 because we believe the rule is a routine, non-controversial amendment to the definition of “gross combination weight rating” (GCWR) in both 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5. The rule would provide consistency between FMCSA's definition of GCWR and the definition of that term used by NHTSA under 49 CFR 571.3. FMCSA does not expect adverse comments. If no adverse comments or notices of intent to submit an adverse comment are received by September 26, 2012, this rule will become effective as stated in the
A comment is considered “adverse” if the comment explains why this rule or a part of this rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to its underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
Currently, the definitions in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5 both say:
The first sentence of the definition is entirely correct; this is the definition used by other authorities. The second sentence, however, presents an alternative definition that is not used to determine GCWR by either vehicle manufacturers or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (
FMCSA is using a direct final rule to promulgate this correction to the GCWR definition in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5 because the Agency does not believe the change would have a net impact of the number of drivers or carriers subject to the FMCSRs, or the applicability of the requirements therein. Furthermore, we do not anticipate the submission of adverse comments. By removing the second sentence in the definition in both sections, the rule simply conforms the Agency's GCWR definition to the one used by NHTSA.
FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and not significant within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures because the direct final rule is not expected to generate substantial congressional or public interest. The rulemaking is unlikely to impose costs on the industry because the change to the GCWR definition would not have a net impact of the number of drivers or carriers subject to the FMCSRs, or the applicability of the requirements therein. The cost, if any, would be borne by motor carriers that had previously determined by reference to the inconsistent wording that their operations were not subject to certain safety regulations and that would now be required to achieve compliance with the applicable rules. The Agency believes this population to be negligible, and that the costs of the rule would not begin to approach the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance. This rule therefore has not been formally reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this direct final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the direct final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Tom Kelly, listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532
A rule has Federalism implications if the rule has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13132 and determined that it does not have Federalism implications.
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency determined that this rule will not create an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection of any personally identifiable information.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. FMCSA has determined this rule will not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway Safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers.
Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, FMCSA amends 49 CFR parts 383 and 390 in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 4140, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; and 49 CFR 1.73.
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31144, 31151, and 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678; secs. 212, 217, and 229, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743-1744), sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; and 49 CFR 1.73.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
This interim final rule establishes a catch limit of 3,763 metric tons (mt) of bigeye tuna (
Effective on September 26, 2012; comments must be submitted in writing by September 26, 2012.
Comments on this interim final rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0145, and the supporting analytical documents may be sent to either of the two addresses below. The supporting documents include the 2012 supplemental environmental assessment (EA) and the regulatory impact review (RIR) prepared for this interim rule. The 2012 supplemental EA supplements a 2009 EA and a 2009 supplemental EA and includes copies of those two documents.
•
•
Copies of the RIR and the 2012 supplemental EA prepared under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are available at
Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-944-2219.
Article 3 of the Convention specifies the area of application of the Convention (the Convention Area), which comprises the majority of the WCPO. A map showing the boundaries of the Convention Area can be found on the WCPFC Web site at:
As a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member of the WCPFC, the United States is obligated to implement the decisions of the WCPFC. The WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
The Convention calls for the WCPFC to adopt measures designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors. With respect to bigeye tuna, the WCPFC Scientific Committee found that the stock of bigeye tuna in the WCPO is experiencing a fishing mortality rate greater than the rate associated with maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, at its Fifth Regular Session, in December 2008, the WCPFC adopted Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2008-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.” The CMM and other decisions of the WCPFC can be found at
The prescribed catch limits in CMM 2008-01 are based on specified percentages of longline catches made during specified baseline periods. For the United States, the baseline period is 2004, with a corresponding catch of 4,181 metric tons (mt). Because the baseline for the U.S. longline fishery is less than 5,000 mt per year, and because the fishery lands exclusively fresh fish, the specified annual catch limit for the U.S. longline fishery is 90 percent of the amount caught during the baseline period for each of the years 2009, 2010, and 2011, or 3,763 mt. On December 7, 2009, NMFS issued a final rule to implement the longline bigeye tuna
The WCPFC was scheduled to hold its Eighth Regular Session in early December 2011, to discuss, among other items, the provisions of CMM 2008-01, such as the bigeye tuna catch limits for longline fisheries, that were scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2011. However, the Eighth Regular Session was unexpectedly postponed until March 2012. Because of that postponement, the WCPFC made an intersessional decision on December 20, 2011, to extend CMM 2008-01 until the Eighth Regular Session could be held. NMFS issued an interim rule on December 30, 2011, extending the purse seine-related provisions of CMM 2008-01 (76 FR 82180). NMFS explained in that interim rule that longline-related provisions of the WCPFC's extension of CMM 2008-01 would be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
At its Eighth Regular Session, in March 2012, the WCPFC adopted a “Conservation and Management Measure for Temporary Extension of CMM 2008-01” (CMM 2011-01). This CMM extends most provisions of CMM 2008-01, including the longline bigeye tuna catch limits applicable to the United States, until February 28, 2013.
The purpose of this interim final rule is to implement the longline bigeye tuna provisions of CMM 2011-01. Accordingly, this interim final rule establishes a 2012 bigeye tuna catch limit in U.S. longline fisheries in the Convention Area as follows:
Under CMM 2011-01, the 2012 bigeye tuna catch limit for U.S. longline fisheries in the Convention Area in 2012 is 3,763 mt, the same amount as for each of 2009, 2010, and 2011. This limit applies only to U.S. longline fisheries other than those of American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI.
As in CMM 2008-01, CMM 2011-01 includes longline fishery-related provisions specifically applicable to Participating Territories in the WCPFC, which include American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI. The longline fisheries of Participating Territories are subject to annual bigeye tuna catch limits of 2,000 mt. Under the CMM, Participating Territories undertaking responsible development of their domestic fisheries are not subject to those annual limits. Because the limits under CMM 2011-01 for the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI far exceed the historical bigeye tuna catches in those fisheries, implementation of bigeye tuna catch limits for the U.S. Participating Territories is not included as part of this interim final rule to establish the U.S. catch limit of 3,763 mt, which needs to be established before the limit is reached.
For the purpose of this interim final rule, the longline fisheries of the three U.S. Participating Territories are distinguished from the other longline fisheries of the United States based on a combination of three factors: (1) Where the bigeye tuna are landed; (2) the types of Federal longline fishing permits registered to the fishing vessel; and (3) whether the fishing vessel is included in an arrangement under Section 113(a) of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
With respect to the first factor, bigeye tuna landed by U.S. vessels in any of the three U.S. Participating Territories, with certain provisos, will be attributed to the longline fishery of that Participating Territory. The provisos are that: (1) The bigeye tuna must not be captured in the portion of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago; and (2) they must be landed by a U.S. fishing vessel operated in compliance with one of the permits required under the regulations implementing the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP) developed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) or the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (i.e., a permit issued under 50 CFR 665.801 or 660.707).
With respect to the second factor, bigeye tuna that are captured by a fishing vessel registered for use under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit will, subject to the provisos mentioned above, be attributed to the longline fishery of American Samoa, regardless of where that catch is landed. This distinction is made because American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permits are issued only to people that have demonstrated participation in the American Samoa pelagic fisheries, such that the catch may properly be attributed to that territory. The regulations implementing the bigeye tuna catch limits for 2009, 2010, and 2011 included these two above factors as well as the related provisos.
The third factor, which was not included in the regulations implementing the bigeye tuna catch limits in 2009, 2010, and 2011, relates to the CFCAA. Section 113(a) of the CFCAA authorizes the U.S. Participating Territories of the WCPFC to use, assign, allocate, and manage catch limits or fishing effort limits agreed to by the WCPFC through arrangements with U.S. vessels with permits issued under the Pelagics FEP. Section 113(a) further directs the Secretary of Commerce, for the purposes of annual reporting to the WCPFC, to attribute catches made by vessels operating under Section 113(a) arrangements to the U.S. Participating Territories. Section 113(a) establishes specific eligibility criteria for such arrangements (discussed further below), and this interim final rule establishes additional requirements and conditions that must be met in order for catches to be attributed to the U.S. Participating Territories. Under this interim final rule, bigeye tuna caught in 2012 by a vessel that is included in an arrangement determined to be eligible under Section 113(a) of the CFCAA will be attributed by NMFS to the appropriate U.S. Participating Territory, according to the procedures and conditions set forth below.
The longline fisheries of the United States and its territories operating in the WCPO are managed as discrete fisheries, with separate compilations of catch and effort statistics and separate management measures for each fishery. In order to allow for the orderly administration of these fisheries and a uniform manner of attributing catches to the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories under eligible Section 113(a) of the CFCAA arrangements, NMFS will wait to attribute catches under eligible Section 113(a) arrangements until the date the catch limit will be reached can be forecasted with a reasonable degree of certainty. Thereafter, NMFS will attribute catches to the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories under eligible Section 113(a) arrangements seven days before the date the U.S. catch limit is forecasted to be reached. This procedure will allow NMFS to properly administer and enforce the specific management requirements for each fishery throughout the year, consistent with the approved Pelagics FEP.
As in 2009, 2010, and 2011, NMFS will prepare forecasts during 2012 of the
There will be no official due date for the receipt by NMFS of potentially eligible CFCAA Section 113(a) arrangements. However, NMFS will need 14 days to process arrangements that it receives, so for an arrangement received after the date that NMFS determines the pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date, attribution to the appropriate U.S. Participating Territory will start 14 days after NMFS has received the arrangement or seven days before the pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date, whichever date is later.
NMFS considered starting catch attribution to the U.S. Participating Territories under eligible CFCAA Section 113(a) arrangements only after the 3,763 mt catch limit is reached, in order to be consistent with past administration of the longline fisheries in the WCPO. However, given the time needed to process Section 113(a) arrangements and the time needed to put into effect the prohibitions once the 3,763 mt catch limit is reached, waiting until the catch limit is reached to begin attribution under arrangements with the U.S. Participating Territories could potentially cause public confusion and result in unnecessary costs in the fishery. For example, should attribution begin only after the catch limit is reached and the prohibitions go into effect, a vessel owner providing NMFS with an eligible arrangement a few days before the catch limit is reached would be subject to the prohibitions for a number of days while the arrangement is processed, even though the prohibitions would be later found not to apply to the vessel. Beginning attribution to the U.S. Participating Territories a short period before the pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date would help avoid the confusion and costs associated with such a situation. It could also have the advantage of avoiding, in certain circumstances, the administrative and other costs associated with putting the prohibitions into effect.
In order for NMFS to attribute to the longline fishery of a U.S. Participating Territory bigeye tuna caught by a particular vessel included in an arrangement under Section 113(a) of the CFCAA, certain requirements under this rule must be met. First, with the exception of existing arrangements received by NMFS prior to the effective date of this interim final rule, NMFS must have received from the vessel owner or designated representative a copy of the arrangement at least 14 days prior to the date the bigeye tuna was caught. In addition, the arrangement must satisfy specific criteria, discussed in detail in the section below, to ensure that it meets the requirements of an eligible arrangement under Section 113(a).
Section 113(a) of the CFCAA remains in effect until the earlier of December 31, 2012, or such time as the WPFMC recommends, and the Secretary approves, an amendment to the Pelagics FEP that would authorize U.S. Participating Territories to use, assign, allocate, and manage catch limits of highly migratory fish stocks, or fishing effort limits, established by the WCPFC, and the amendment is implemented via regulations. NMFS will take the status of that amendment into consideration in the development of the final rule for this action.
Any bigeye tuna attributed to the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI as provided under this rule will not be counted against the U.S. limit. All other bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the Convention Area by U.S. longline vessels and retained will be counted against the U.S. limit.
Under this interim final rule, an arrangement shall not be eligible for the attribution of bigeye tuna to the U.S. Participating Territories under the terms of Section 113(a) unless each of the following five criteria is met: (1) The arrangement must include vessels registered for use with valid permits issued under the Pelagics FEP; (2) the arrangement must impose no requirements regarding where the vessels fish or land their catch; (3) the arrangement must be signed by all the owners of the vessels included in the arrangement, or by their designated representative(s); (4) the arrangement must be signed by an authorized official of the U.S. Participating Territory(ies) or his or her designated representative(s); and (5) the arrangement must be funded by deposits to the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund in support of fisheries development projects identified in a territory's Marine Conservation Plan adopted pursuant to section 204 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. If NMFS determines that an arrangement does not meet the criteria for eligibility, NMFS will notify the parties to the arrangement or their designated representative(s) within 14 days of receiving a copy of the arrangement.
NMFS is currently aware of one existing arrangement, between the Government of American Samoa and the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), that is subject to Section 113(a) of the CFCAA. This arrangement is set to expire at the end of 2012. This interim final rule is not expected to materially affect implementation of this arrangement under Section 113.
The procedures and criteria for the attribution of bigeye tuna catch to the U.S. Participating Territories established in this interim final rule are applicable only for 2012. If the WCPFC adopts catch limits for bigeye tuna that are applicable in 2013 or beyond, NMFS will review and revise the requirements of this interim final rule when implementing those catch limits, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with
If NMFS determines that the limit is expected to be reached before the end of 2012, NMFS will publish a notice in the
First, any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days after the restrictions become effective. A vessel that has declared to NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a) that the current trip type is shallow-setting is not subject to this 14-day landing restriction.
Second, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are captured by a fishing vessel registered for use under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit or if they are landed in American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI, with the following provisos: The bigeye tuna must not have been caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago and must be landed by a U.S. fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
Third, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they were caught by a vessel that is included in an eligible arrangement under Section 113(a) of the CFCAA, as specified above, and the bigeye tuna are subject to attribution to the longline fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI in accordance with the terms of the arrangement, and to the extent consistent with the requirements and procedures established in this interim final rule, with the following proviso: NMFS must have received from the vessel owner or designated representative a copy of the arrangement at least 14 days prior to the activity (i.e., the retention on board, transshipment, or landing). The advance notification provision will not apply to existing arrangements received by NMFS prior to the effective date of this interim final rule.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this interim rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and prior opportunity for public comment on this action, because those requirements are contrary to the public interest and impracticable. Because of the unexpected postponement of the Eighth Regular Session of the WCPFC due to a power outage in the host country, CMM 2011-01 was not agreed upon by the WCPFC as the replacement measure for CMM 2008-01 until March 30, 2012. Pursuant to CMM 2011-01, this rule establishes requirements applicable to U.S. fishing vessels that catch, retain, transship or land bigeye tuna in the Convention Area in 2012. Further delaying implementation of a WCPFC conservation and management measure intended to establish annual limits for a bigeye tuna stock that is subject to overfishing would be contrary to the public's interest because without implementation, there are no limits on U.S. longline bigeye tuna catches in the WCPO. Such a result would also violate NMFS' obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for the proper management of fishery resources and be inconsistent with the United States' international legal obligations.
Moreover, the requirements in this rule are substantially similar to the regulations established in 2009 that were applicable during the years 2009-2011 (to implement WCPFC CMM 2008-01). With the exception of the catch attribution provisions related to implementation of Section 113(a) of the CFCAA, all the requirements in this rule were subject to prior notice and opportunity for public comment in 2009 (proposed rule published July 8, 2009, 74 FR 32521; final rule published December 7, 2009, 74 FR 63999).
With respect to the catch attribution provisions related to implementation of Section 113(a) of the CFCAA, this interim final rule establishes a process allowing for the orderly administration of these fisheries and a uniform manner of attributing catches to the fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories under
Finally, NMFS must implement the 2012 longline bigeye tuna catch limit in CMM 2011-01 before the limit is reached in order to satisfy international legal obligations and to ensure there is no gap in the implementation of important conservation measures for bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean, which is subject to overfishing.
Accordingly, we find that it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable to the United States' ability to meet its international obligations to delay implementation of the catch limit provisions in order to hold a prior comment period on the CFCAA Section 113(a)-related provisions.
Therefore, NMFS finds it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice and prior opportunity for public comment on this interim final rule. A comment period is provided by this interim final rule, and comments on the interim final rule will be considered prior to publication of the final rule.
NMFS has determined that this rule will be implemented in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal zone management programs of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the State of Hawaii. This determination has been submitted for review by the responsible territorial and state agencies under section 307 of the CZMA.
This interim rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an EA and Supplemental EA in 2009 to evaluate the environmental effects of the implementation of the bigeye tuna catch limits for U.S. longline fisheries for 2009, 2010, and 2011. NMFS has prepared a Supplemental EA that builds upon the analyses in the 2009 EA and Supplemental EA, and evaluates the effects of this interim final rule on the human environment. NMFS has determined that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this interim final rule and an Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 6901
(bb) Use a fishing vessel to retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the Convention Area or to fish in contravention of § 300.224(f)(1) or (f)(2).
(cc) Use a fishing vessel to fish in the Pacific Ocean using longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area on the same fishing trip in contravention of § 300.224(f)(3).
(dd) Fail to stow longline gear as required in § 300.224(f)(4).
(a)
(b)
(1) The bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago; and
(2) The bigeye tuna were landed by a fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under § 660.707 or § 665.801 of this title.
(c)
(1) The bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago; and
(2) The bigeye tuna were landed by a fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under § 660.707 or § 665.801 of this title.
(d)
(1) NMFS has received a copy of the arrangement from the vessel owner or a designated representative at least 14 days prior to the date the bigeye tuna was caught, except that this requirement shall not apply to any arrangement provided to NMFS prior to the effective date of this paragraph;
(2) The bigeye tuna was caught on or after the “start date” specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section; and
(3) NMFS has determined that the arrangement satisfies the requirements of Section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
(e)
(f)
(1) A fishing vessel of the United States may not be used to retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the Convention Area, except as follows:
(i) Any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the prohibitions may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided that they are landed within 14 days after the prohibitions become effective. The 14-day landing requirement does not apply to a vessel that has declared to NMFS, pursuant to § 665.803(a) of this title, that the current trip type is shallow-setting.
(ii) Bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are landed in American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, provided that:
(A) The bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago;
(B) Such retention, transshipment, and/or landing is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and
(C) The bigeye tuna are landed by a fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under § 660.707 or § 665.801 of this title.
(iii) Bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel registered for use under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit issued under § 665.801(c) of this title, provided that:
(A) The bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago;
(B) Such retention, transshipment, and/or landing is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and
(C) The bigeye tuna are landed by a fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under § 660.707 or § 665.801 of this title.
(iv) Bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they were caught by a vessel that is included in an arrangement under the authorization of Section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
(A) NMFS has received a copy of the arrangement at least 14 days prior to the activity (i.e., the retention on board, transshipment, or landing), unless NMFS has received a copy of the arrangement prior to the effective date of this section;
(B) The “start date” specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section has occurred or passed; and
(C) NMFS has determined that the arrangement satisfies the requirements of Section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
(2) Bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area may not be transshipped to a fishing vessel unless that fishing vessel is operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under § 660.707 or § 665.801 of this title.
(3) A fishing vessel of the United States, other than a vessel that catches bigeye tuna catch that is to be attributed to the longline fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in accordance with paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section, or a vessel for which a declaration has been made to NMFS, pursuant to § 665.803(a) of this title, that the current trip type is shallow-setting, may not be used to fish in the Pacific Ocean using longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area during the same fishing trip, with the exception of a fishing trip during which the prohibitions were put into effect as announced under paragraph (e) of this section, in which case the bigeye tuna on board the vessel may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided that they are landed within 14 days after the prohibitions become effective.
(4) If a fishing vessel of the United States, other than a vessel that catches bigeye tuna catch that is to be attributed to the longline fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, in accordance with paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, or a vessel for which a declaration has been made to NMFS, pursuant to § 665.803(a) of this title, that the current trip type is shallow-setting, is used to fish in the Pacific Ocean using longline gear outside the Convention Area and the vessel enters the Convention Area at any time during the same fishing trip, the longline gear on the fishing vessel must, while in the Convention Area, be stowed in a manner so as not to be readily available for fishing; specifically, the hooks, branch or dropper lines, and floats used to buoy the mainline must be stowed and not available for immediate use, and any power-operated mainline hauler on deck must be covered in such
(g)
(1) For the purpose of this section, the “pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date” is the date the catch limit established under paragraph (a) of this section is forecast by NMFS to be reached, assuming that no catches would be attributed to the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under arrangements authorized under Section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
(2) For the purpose of this section, the “start date” for attribution of catches to the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for a particular arrangement is:
(i) For arrangements copies of which are received by NMFS no later than the date NMFS determines the pre-Section113(a) attribution forecast date, seven days before the pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date; and
(ii) For arrangements copies of which are received by NMFS after the date NMFS determines the pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date, 14 days after the date that NMFS receives a copy of the arrangement or seven days before the pre-Section 113(a) attribution forecast date, whichever is later.
(3) NMFS will determine whether an arrangement satisfies the requirements of Section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
(i) Vessels included under the arrangement must be registered for use with valid permits issued under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pacific Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region;
(ii) The arrangement must not impose any requirements regarding where the vessels included in the arrangement fish or land their catch;
(iii) The arrangement must be signed by the owners of all the vessels included in the arrangement or their designated representative(s);
(iv) The arrangement must be signed by an authorized official of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or his or her designated representative(s); and
(v) The arrangement must be funded by deposits to the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund in support of fisheries development projects identified in the Marine Conservation Plan of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands adopted pursuant to section 204 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
(4) NMFS will notify the parties to the arrangement or their designated representative(s) within 14 days of receiving a copy of the arrangement, if the arrangement does not meet the criteria specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, and B4-622R airplanes. The existing AD currently requires performing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the forward fitting at frame (FR) 40 on both sides of the airplane for cracks, and repair if necessary. Since we issued that AD, we have received reports that new cracks were found in the FR 40 forward fitting. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the forward fitting at FR 40 without nut removal, and a one-time eddy current or liquid penetrant inspection of the forward fitting at FR 40 with nut removal, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the FR 40 forward fitting, which could result in a deterioration of the structural integrity of the frame.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On March 4, 2010, we issued AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010), we have received reports that additional cracks have been found after the modification had been completed. In addition, new inspections have been added to address the unsafe condition. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0163, dated August 30, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
One A300-600 aeroplane operator reported that, during a routine inspection, a crack was found in the right hand frame (FR) 40 forward fitting between stringer 32 and stringer 33. The subject aeroplane had previously been modified in accordance with Airbus SB A300-57-6053 (Mod. 10453).
Therefore and pending completion of the full analysis using a refined Finite Element Model, EASA issued AD 2009-0094 [which corresponds with FAA AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010)] to require a one-time Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) of the post-SB A300-57-6053 A300-600 aeroplanes and post-SB A300-53-0297 A300 aeroplanes in order to ensure the structural integrity of frame 40.
During a recent maintenance check, on two aeroplanes (one A300B4 and one A300-600), cracks were found in the FR 40 forward fitting.
These new crack findings are considered as unexpected, since they were found after:
For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2009-0094, requires repetitive DVI of the FR 40 forward fitting (without nut removal), accomplishment of a one time Eddy Current
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Airbus has issued All Operator Telex A300-53A0391, dated August 9, 2011 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); and All Operator Telex A300-57A6111, dated August 9, 2011 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes). The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 134 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010), and retained in this proposed AD take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $255 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,170, or $255 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010), and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by October 11, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010).
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD. For airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0297 or A300-57-6053 (Airbus Modification 10453), as applicable, have been incorporated as a corrective action (repair following crack finding), no action is required by this AD.
(1) Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, all serial numbers, modified preventively in service (without any preliminary crack findings) as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0297 (Airbus Modification 10453).
(2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes, all serial numbers, modified preventively in service (without any preliminary crack findings) as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6053 (Airbus Modification 10453).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, 57: Fuselage, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports that cracks were found in the frame (FR) 40 forward fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the FR 40 forward fitting, which could result in a deterioration of the structural integrity of the frame.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010).
(1) At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Do a one-time detailed visual inspection of the forward fitting at FR 40 on both sides of the airplane, in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57A6108 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes) or A300-53A0387 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes), both including
(2) Except as required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD: If any crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do a temporary or definitive repair, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0268, Revision 06, dated January 7, 2002 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or A300-57-6052, Revision 03, dated May 27, 2002, including Airbus Drawings 15R53810394, Issue A, dated December 21, 1998, and 21R57110247, Issue A, dated June 20, 1997 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes).
(3) If any crack found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD cannot be repaired in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0268, Revision 06, dated January 7, 2002 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or A300-57-6052, Revision 03, dated May 27, 2002 including Airbus Drawings 15R53810394, Issue A, dated December 21, 1998, and 21R57110247, Issue A, dated June 20, 1997 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes): Contact Airbus for repair instructions and, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(4) of AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010). Submit an inspection report in accordance with Appendix 01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-53A0387, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 12, 2008 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57A6108, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 12, 2008 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes); to the address identified on the reporting sheet, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) If the inspection was done on or after April 15, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010)): Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before April 15, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-06-05, Amendment 39-16229 (75 FR 11435, March 11, 2010)): Submit the report within 30 days after April 15, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-06-05).
Within 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for cracks of the forward fitting at FR 40 without nut removal on both sides of the airplane, in accordance with Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A0391, dated August 9, 2011 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or Airbus All Operator Telex A300-57A6111, dated August 9, 2011 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes). Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform an eddy current inspection or a liquid penetrant inspection for cracks of the forward fitting at FR 40 with nut removal on both sides of the airplane, in accordance with Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A0391, dated August 9, 2011 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or Airbus All Operator Telex A300-57A6111, dated August 9, 2011 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes).
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, any crack is detected: Before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent).
Submit a one-time report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD to Airbus, Sebastien Faure, SEES1, SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 31 68; fax +33 5 61 93 36 14; email
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Accomplishment of the one-time eddy current inspection or a liquid penetrant inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, including doing all applicable repairs, constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0163, dated August 30, 2011, and the service information in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (o)(1)(vi) of this AD, for related information.
(i) Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A0391, dated August 9, 2011.
(ii) Airbus All Operator Telex A300-57A6111, dated August 9, 2011.
(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57A6108, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 12, 2008.
(iv) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-53A0387, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 12, 2008.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0268, Revision 06, dated January 7, 2002.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6052, Revision 03, dated May 27, 2002, including Airbus Drawings 15R53810394, Issue A, dated December 21, 1998, and 21R57110247, Issue A, dated June 20, 1997.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by incorrect wire support clamps installed within the left environmental cooling systems (ECS) bay, which could allow wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of the improper clamp. This proposed AD would require inspections to identify the part number of the wire support clamp, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent electrical arcing and a potential ignition source, which in combination with flammable fuel vapors could result in a fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6482; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We reviewed reports of incorrect wire support clamps installed within the left ECS bay, which is a flammable leakage zone. Use of incorrect wire support clamps that are not fully cushioned could allow electrical power wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of the improper clamp. Power wiring shorts to the exposed metal of the wire support clamp could produce electrical arcing. We are proposing this AD to prevent electrical arcing and a potential ignition source, which in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26, 2012. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of certain wire support clamps to identify part number TA0930034-10 wire support clamp and related investigative actions to verify that the flange cushions completely surround the two metal strap sections of the wire support clamp and to detect any possible chafing of the wire bundle within the left side ECS bay, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include replacing the discrepant clamp with a new or serviceable TA0930034-10 wire support clamp if the part number is incorrect or if the flange cushions do not completely surround the two metal strap sections of the wire support clamp, and repairing or replacing chafed wiring.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 297 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.
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.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair of chafed or damaged wiring specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
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.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by October 11, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26, 2012.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel System.
This AD was prompted by incorrect wire support clamps installed within the left environmental cooling systems (ECS) bay, which could allow wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of the improper clamp. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing and a potential ignition source, which in combination with flammable fuel vapors could result in a fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for part number TA0930034-10 wire support clamp, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1303, dated April 26, 2012. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a wire support clamp that is not part number (P/N) TA0930034-10 within the left ECS bay of any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6482; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; rescission.
We propose to rescind an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The existing AD also requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes); and No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes). We issued that AD to prevent electrical energy from lightning, hot shorts, or fault current from entering the fuel tank through the actuator shaft, which could result in fuel tank
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6509; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On February 28, 2008, we issued AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. That AD requires inspecting to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires revising the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes); and No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes). That AD resulted from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We issued that AD to prevent electrical energy from lightning, hot shorts, or fault current from entering the fuel tank through the actuator shaft, which could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008), we discovered that the corrective action addresses that safety concern, but also introduces a different unsafe condition. The manufacturer is developing a more complete solution to address both unsafe conditions. We will consider additional rulemaking to require a new solution once that solution is developed, approved, and available for accomplishment.
Upon further consideration, we have determined that existing AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008), must be rescinded. Accordingly, this proposed AD would rescind AD 2008-06-03. Rescission of AD 2008-06-03 would not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.
AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008), affects about 1,406 airplanes of U.S. registry. The estimated cost of the currently required actions for U.S. operators was $112,480 per inspection, and $337,440 per AWL revision; or $80 per inspection, and $240 per AWL revision, per airplane. Rescinding AD 2008-06-03 would eliminate those costs.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008), and adding the following new AD:
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 11, 2012.
(b) This action rescinds AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008).
(c) This action applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007, and 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installing two warning level indicator lights on each of the P1-3 and P3-1 instrument panels in the flight compartment. That NPRM also proposed to require revising the airplane flight manual to remove certain requirements of previous AD actions, and to advise the flightcrew of the following changes: revised non-normal procedures to use when a cabin altitude warning or rapid depressurization occurs, and revised cabin pressurization procedures for normal operations. That NPRM was prompted by a design change in the cabin altitude warning system that would address the identified unsafe condition. This action revises that NPRM by adding airplanes to the applicability; adding airplanes to the installation requirement, including, for certain airplanes, replacing the existing P5-16 and P5-10 panels; and, for certain airplanes, replacing the basic P5-16 panel with a high altitude landing P5-16 panel. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent failure of the flightcrew to recognize and react to a valid cabin altitude warning horn, which could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by October 11, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jeffrey W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6472; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
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
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM published in the
Since we issued the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011), we have determined that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition, the installation of two warning level indicator lights must be done on additional airplanes (i.e., airplanes with the high altitude landing configuration of the cabin altitude warning system), and for certain airplanes, a replacement of the basic P5-16 panel with a high altitude landing P5-16 panel must be done. And for certain other airplanes replacement of the existing P5-16 and P5-10 panels must be done.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012. The previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011), referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010, as the appropriate source of service information for doing the proposed actions. Boeing has revised this service information to add airplanes to the effectivity (including the airplanes that were identified in table 1 of the previous NPRM) and clarify certain actions and figures. We have changed paragraph (c) of this supplemental NPRM to refer to the airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012. We have also included Revision 3 as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions of this supplemental NPRM. We have also included credit for actions accomplished using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; provided certain actions have been done on certain airplanes.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012, includes concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21-1171, dated February 12, 2009, for certain airplanes. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21-1171, dated February 12, 2009, describes procedures for replacing the basic P5-16 panel with a high altitude landing P5-16 panel.
On August 7, 2009, we issued AD 2009-16-07, Amendment 39-15990 (74 FR 41607, August 18, 2009), for certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. That AD requires replacing brackets that hold the P5 panel to the airplane structure, the standby compass bracket assembly, the generator drive and standby power module, and the air conditioning module. That AD also requires among other actions, inspecting for wire length and for damage of the connectors and the wire bundles and doing applicable corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires an additional operational test of the P5-14 panel.
For airplanes on which the modification specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; was done, those actions could result in non-compliance with the actions required by AD 2009-16-07, Amendment 39-15990 (74 FR 41607, August 18, 2009). For airplanes on which the modification in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012, was done, those actions comply with the actions required by AD 2009-16-07. In light of these factors, operators should ensure compliance with AD 2009-16-07.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Air Line Pilot's Association International supports the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011).
American Airlines (AAL) stated that it started a program for accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. AAL added that adoption of a 36-month accomplishment schedule will result in six airplanes on which the actions cannot be completed during its normal heavy maintenance schedule; therefore, a special higher-cost visit will have to be scheduled for those airplanes. AAL noted that the current flight manual procedures will remain in place until all airplanes are modified. We infer that AAL is asking that the compliance time be extended to coincide with its normal heavy maintenance schedule.
We partially agree with the commenter.
We agree with the commenter's intention to keep its current flight manual procedures in place until all airplanes in its fleet have been modified. This will maintain continuous standardization of operating procedures across the operator's fleet, allowing operation of all airplanes in its fleet under one common set of operating procedures at all times. Since the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011) proposed to require airplane flight manual changes before further flight after accomplishing the required airplane modification, increasing the compliance time requirement for the airplane flight manual changes is necessary in order to allow operators the ability to provide this standardization of operating procedures. We have determined that since all airplanes are required to be modified within 36 months, those airplanes must also have the required airplane flight manual changes incorporated within the same time frame, but not before the required airplane modifications have been accomplished. We have increased the compliance time for the airplane flight manual revision required by paragraph (j) of this supplemental NPRM to within 36 months after the effective date of this AD and after doing the airplane
We do not agree to increase the compliance time for the modification. We acknowledge that in some cases it may be necessary to accomplish AD requirements outside of normal maintenance schedules and that additional cost can be incurred. However, we performed a risk assessment which indicates that a 36-month compliance time for accomplishing the modification is the longest acceptable compliance time allowed, in order to provide continued operational safety. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the actions. In light of this, we have determined that a 36-month interval is appropriate. Under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of the supplemental NPRM, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the compliance time requirement in paragraph (g) of the supplemental NPRM.
Delta Airlines (DAL) asked that the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011) include a provision specifying that airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, dated January 7, 2010, has been done are in compliance with the proposed requirements. DAL stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010, indicates that no more work is necessary on airplanes changed in accordance with the original issue of that service bulletin. DAL added that although it has not done the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, dated January 7, 2010, there may be other operators that have. DAL suggested that the previous NPRM include a paragraph to address those airplanes.
We do not agree with the commenter. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, dated January 7, 2010, was only approved for use on one airplane to validate the Accomplishment Instructions. That validation revealed that extensive corrections to the instructions were necessary to accomplish the modification; therefore, it did not receive FAA approval for fleetwide use. In light of this, no credit is allowed for prior accomplishment of the actions required by this supplemental NPRM using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, dated January 7, 2010. If any operators incorporated the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, dated January 7, 2010, affected operators may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this supplemental NPRM by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
DAL asked that we clarify the instructions in certain notes specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. DAL stated that paragraph (g) of the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011) requires operators to install warning level indicator lights in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. DAL added that Figure 1, Note (b), and Figure 2, Note (b) of that service bulletin specify that operators can get the new part by reworking the existing part; Figure 3, Notes (a) and (b) also specify reworking the panels. DAL noted that these figures specify that the rework is done by using the procedures in the referenced BAE Systems service bulletins. DAL added that Figure 1, Note (b) states “You can get the new part by reworking the existing part as given in BAE Systems SB 233A2221-31-01, BAE Systems SB 233A2221-31-02, and BAE Systems SB 233A2221-31-03.” DAL stated that rework of the panel in accordance with only one of the three BAE Systems service bulletins is required, based on the number of the panel to be modified. DAL noted that it is not possible to accomplish all three of the BAE Systems service bulletins on one panel since each service bulletin is applicable to a unique set of part numbers.
We do not agree with the commenter. The manufacturer has not identified the dash level of the part numbers in the subject notes of the referenced figures specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. The intent of the notes is to allow rework of the applicable dash number part according to the applicable BAE component service bulletin, not by using all three BAE component service bulletins. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
DAL asked that we clarify the CMM reference specified in paragraph 1.K. “Publications Affected” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. DAL stated that this section refers to CMM 31-53; however, the correct references should be CMM 31-11-30 and CMM 31-11-59. DAL notified Boeing of this discrepancy; Boeing agreed that the reference in this service bulletin is incorrect and indicated that it would be corrected in a future revision.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, the list of publications does not affect the actions required by the AD. In addition, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012, changed note (c) in Figures 1 and 2 to provide the correct BAE Systems CMM references. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
DAL asked that we include contact information in the AD so operators can obtain the applicable BAE Systems service bulletins referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010, for reworking the existing part. DAL noted that the BAE service bulletins contain procedures for reworking the existing P1-3 and P3-1 panels. DAL added that paragraph (m) of the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011) identifies Boeing contact information, but does not include BAE Systems contact information.
We do not agree with the commenter. The BAE Systems service bulletins are not referred to in this supplemental NPRM; therefore, the BAE Systems contact information is not included. Operators should contact Boeing for any additional documents referred to in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, or Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Boeing asked that we change paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011), paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of this supplemental NPRM, to remove the language “For normal operations, the pressurization mode selector should be in AUTO prior to takeoff.” Boeing stated that this step is already included in the Boeing Flight
We do not agree with the commenter. We find that there is relevant accident history associated with incorrect setting of this specific switch; therefore, continued emphasis on the proper positioning of the switch prior to takeoff is required in the airplane flight manual. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
AAL asked that we increase the work hours specified in the previous NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011). AAL stated that an evaluation of the referenced service information on its prototype airplane resulted in a work-hour requirement of 2.5 times greater than the 64 hours specified in the previous NPRM. AAL added that a better estimate for completing the entire modification would be 140 work-hours.
We do not agree with the commenter. The cost information in this supplemental NPRM describes only the direct costs of the specific required actions. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this supplemental NPRM. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. But the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs such as the time necessary for planning, airplane down time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.
This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 870 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by October 11, 2012.
This AD affects the ADs identified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD. This AD does not supersede the requirements of these ADs.
(1) AD 2003-14-08, Amendment 39-13227 (68 FR 41519, July 14, 2003).
(2) AD 2006-13-13, Amendment 39-14666 (71 FR 35781, June 22, 2006).
(3) AD 2008-23-07, Amendment 39-15728 (73 FR 66512, November 10, 2008).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Instruments.
This AD was prompted by a design change in the cabin altitude warning system that would address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the flightcrew to recognize and react to a valid cabin altitude warning horn, which could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the body) and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install two warning level indicator lights on each of the P1-3 and P3-1 instrument panels in the flight compartment, and as applicable, replace the existing P5-16 and P5-10 panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012.
For Group 21, Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: Prior to or concurrently with doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, replace the basic P5-16 panel with a high altitude landing P5-16 panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21-1171, dated February 12, 2009.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; except Groups 24, 25, and 27 through 33 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference.
(2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; except airplanes identified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD and Groups 24, 25, and 27 through 33 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference.
(3) For Group 21, Configuration 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference; and provided that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21-1171, dated February 12, 2009, was accomplished prior to or concurrently with the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, and after doing the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD.
(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM by doing the following action: Delete the “CABIN ALTITUDE WARNING TAKEOFF BRIEFING” added by AD 2008-23-07, Amendment 39-15728 (73 FR 66512, November 10, 2008).
(2) Revise the Non-Normal Procedures Section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iii), and (j)(2)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Delete the procedure titled “WARNING HORN—CABIN ALTITUDE OR CONFIGURATION” added by AD 2006-13-13, Amendment 39-14666 (71 FR 35781, June 22, 2006). If the title of this procedure has been changed according to FAA alternative method of compliance (AMOC) Letter 130S-09-134a, dated April 28, 2009, delete the procedure that was approved according to this AMOC letter.
(ii) Delete the procedure titled “CABIN ALTITUDE WARNING OR RAPID DEPRESSURIZATION” added by AD 2003-14-08, Amendment 39-13227 (68 FR 41519, July 14, 2003).
(iii) If the procedure titled “CABIN ALTITUDE (Airplanes with the CABIN ALTITUDE lights installed)” is currently contained in the applicable Boeing 737 AFM, delete the procedure titled “CABIN ALTITUDE (Airplanes with the CABIN ALTITUDE lights installed).”
(iv) Add the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the applicable AFM.
Condition: The CABIN ALTITUDE warning light illuminates or the intermittent warning horn sounds in flight above 10,000 ft MSL.
(3) Revise the Normal Procedures Section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Delete the procedure titled “CABIN ALTITUDE WARNING TAKEOFF BRIEFING” procedure added by AD 2008-23-07, Amendment 39-15728 (73 FR 66512, November 10, 2008).
(ii) Add the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the applicable AFM.
For normal operations, the pressurization mode selector should be in AUTO prior to takeoff.
Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the requirements of the ADs identified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD for only the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
(1) AD 2003-14-08, Amendment 39-13227 (68 FR 41519, July 14, 2003): The requirements specified in Table 1 and Figure 1 of that AD.
(2) AD 2006-13-13, Amendment 39-14666 (71 FR 35781, June 22, 2006): All requirements of that AD.
(3) AD 2008-23-07, Amendment 39-15728 (73 FR 66512, November 10, 2008): All requirements of that AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Jeffrey W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6472; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles of the main landing gear (MLG) were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 millimeters. This proposed AD would require replacing the wheel axle of the MLG with a serviceable part. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue of the wheel axle of the MLG, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0170, dated September 7, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
EASA has received a report via Airbus and Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Ltd, from a Maintenance repair organisation, concerning a specific repair, accomplished on certain MLG wheel axles. Investigations revealed that the axles have been machined with a radius as small as 0.4 mm.
This condition, if not corrected, has a detrimental effect on the fatigue lives of these parts, possibly affecting the structural integrity of the aeroplane. Fatigue analyses were performed, the results of which
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the replacement of the MLG wheel axles before reaching the new reduced demonstrated life limit.
Airbus has issued All Operator Telex A330-32A3256, dated August 24, 2011, including Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes); and All Operator Telex A340-32A4292, dated August 24, 2011, including Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes). The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 59 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 48 work-hours 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 $153,443 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,293,857, or $157,523 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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:
We must receive comments by October 11, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 54500 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 millimeters. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue of the wheel axle of the main landing gear (MLG), which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, an affected MLG wheel axle is defined as a MLG axle having a part number and serial number specified in Part 1 of Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011, of Airbus All Operator Telex A330-32A3256, dated August 24, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes); or Airbus All Operator Telex A340-32A4292, dated August 24, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
(2) After removal from an airplane, an affected MLG wheel axle that has reached its life limit is considered an unserviceable part.
(3) The term “life limit” used in this AD means a post-repair life limit.
At the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Replace all affected MLG wheel axles with serviceable parts, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus All Operator Telex A330-32A3256, dated August 24, 2011, including Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes); or Airbus All Operator Telex A340-32A4292, dated August 24, 2011, including Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
(1) Replace before the accumulation of the applicable landings or flight hours specified
(2) Replace within 24 months after the effective date of this AD without exceeding the applicable landings or flight hours specified in table 2 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. The “Post Repair MLG wheel axle flight hours or landings, not to be exceeded” must be counted from the date of installation of the MLG wheel axle on an airplane which occurs after the date of repair specified in the Part 1 of Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011, of Airbus All Operator Telex A330-32A3256, dated August 24, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes); or Airbus All Operator Telex A340-32A4292, dated August 24, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
As of the effective date of this AD: An affected MLG wheel axle can be installed on an airplane, provided the MLG wheel axle has not exceeded the limits specified in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and it is replaced with a serviceable part before reaching the life limit defined in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0170, dated September 7, 2011, and the service information in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, for related information.
(i) Airbus All Operator Telex A330-32A3256, dated August 24, 2011, including Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011.
(ii) Airbus All Operator Telex A340-32A4292, dated August 24, 2011, including Appendix 1, dated August 23, 2011.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notification.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission, or we) is announcing its intent to hold a Summit on all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety. The Summit will be held at the CPSC's headquarters in Bethesda, MD, on October 11 and 12, 2012. We invite interested parties to participate in or attend the Summit and to submit comments.
The Summit will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 11 and 12, 2012. Individuals interested in serving on panels or presenting information at the Summit should register by September 14, 2012; all other individuals who wish to attend the Summit should register by October 5, 2012. Written comments must be received by November 14, 2012.
The Summit will be held at the CPSC's headquarters, 4330 East West Highway, 4th Floor Hearing Room, Bethesda, MD 20814. Persons interested in serving on a panel, presenting information, or attending the Summit should register online at
You may submit written comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0048, by any of the following methods:
Hope Nesteruk, Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7694, email
All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are motorized vehicles, designed for off-road use, with three or four broad, low-pressure tires (less than 10 pounds per square inch), a seat designed to be straddled by the operator, and handlebars for steering. Since the 1980s, the CPSC has been involved with ATV safety through various means, including rulemaking, recalls, and litigation. Currently, ATVs are required to meet the Commission's ATV safety standard at 16 CFR part 1420, and comply with manufacturer and distributor action plans that require numerous additional safety measures. However, a number of ATV issues remain. For example, there are several issues from our 2006 NPR that differ from the requirements of 16 CFR part 1420 and the action plans. In addition, aspects of safety that are related to the behavior of ATV operators, such as use restrictions governing issues such as helmet use, riding on pavement, licensing of drivers, and age restrictions are generally a matter left to the states. Finally, some avenues toward improved ATV safety require additional research that is beyond the Commission's current budget and resources.
CPSC staff is looking toward the future and envisions a two-pronged approach to improving ATV safety: Regulation and stakeholder engagement. Work regarding the 2006 NPR is nearing completion. However, because 6 years have passed since the issuance of the NPR, staff would like to provide stakeholders an opportunity to present their views on the outstanding issues. In addition, once rulemaking is complete, we envision that the next phase of the effort will focus on the different roles each of the various stakeholders can play to achieve the goal we believe every one of these stakeholders support: Keeping families safe on ATVs. With these interests in mind, we are inviting stakeholders to come together for an ATV Safety Summit. This Summit will serve as a forum for stakeholders who have a mutual commitment to ATV safety to share new information, as well as collaborate as a team and seek solutions to common problems.
The Summit will take place over 2 days and will feature a mix of rulemaking and nonrulemaking topic areas. There will be a series of panel discussions each day focused on a different topic of ATV safety. The details of the various topics are found in section III. The panel sessions will begin with presentations from each panelist and will be followed by a question, answer, and discussion forum. Every forum will be an open discussion led by CPSC staff moderators where attendees can speak freely. The discussions centering on our rulemaking will allow attendees to discuss the open rulemaking, and these discussions may be used to inform our future rulemaking. The discussion focusing on new innovations in ATV safety will allow stakeholders to work together to achieve common goals, develop possible solutions, and address actions that each stakeholder can perform to advance the goal of keeping families safe on ATVs.
Our primary goal in this ATV Safety Summit is to bring together the stakeholders, including manufacturers, consumer advocates, academic researchers, and others with an interest in ATV safety, in an environment that fosters mutual respect and that encourages the sharing of information. We hope that by sharing lessons learned regarding public awareness, information/education, training, and technology, the groups each can take away information and ideas that will help everyone promote ATV safety. In addition, for issues that are not related to our current rulemaking effort, we want to encourage stakeholders to work together to develop solutions to ATV issues apart from any effort or assistance by the CPSC.
Because there are some differences between the regulations we proposed in 2006 and the regulations we promulgated after passage of the CPSIA, a secondary goal of the Summit is to give stakeholders the opportunity to inform CPSC staff of any new developments in these areas. More specifically, we are interested in learning about new developments in the areas of ATV lighting, consumer point-of-purchase information, and youth ATVs (speeds, size, weight, and transmission).
In general, the Summit will focus on the overall theme: “Keeping Families Safe on ATVs.” We recommend that all potential panelists consider this general theme when preparing. In particular, there are six topics areas that we have identified. Below is a list of the subject of each session and suggested specific topics for each. These suggested topics are meant to be a guideline, but potential panelists should not feel limited only to what is suggested below.
It is difficult to anticipate the number of panelists who will be available for each topic area. Therefore, we have not yet determined the order of the panel sessions. We may combine, expand, or eliminate panel sessions depending on the level of interest. The final schedule will be announced on our Web site by September 28, 2012.
The Summit will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on October 11-12, 2012, at the CPSC Headquarters building at 4330 East West Highway, 4th Floor Hearing Room, Bethesda, MD 20814.
If you would like to be a panelist for a specific session of the Summit, you should register by September 14, 2012. (See the
If you wish to attend and participate in the Summit, but you do not wish to be a panelist, you should also register by October 5, 2012, and identify your affiliation. Every effort will be made to accommodate each person's request; however, we may need to limit registration to meet the occupant capacity of our meeting rooms. If you are unable to attend the Summit, it will be available through a webcast, but you will not be able to interact with the panels and presenters, nor will every panel session be available. You do not need to register for the webcast. The panels that are not webcast will be taped and made available for viewing on the CPSC Web site.
If you wish to submit written comments for any reason, you may do so before or after the Summit by any of the methods stated in the
The Summit will open with a plenary session that includes a brief overview of the Commission's past activities on ATVs. Following that, there will be a series of panels covering the topics listed above. Each panel session will consist of stakeholders and members of the public and will be moderated by CPSC staff. We expect potential panelists to speak for approximately 10 minutes each about their topic area. At the conclusion of the panel's presentations, there will be a question, answer, and discussion session among the panelists and the audience, centering on the topics discussed by the panelists. Each panel session will be approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes.
For the topics not related to rulemaking activities, a CPSC moderator will work with the group to help identify common goals, possible solutions, and actions each stakeholder can take, independent of any action, effort, or funding from the CPSC. We are not soliciting or accepting any advice from the group as a whole; instead, we are seeking to encourage the stakeholders to find common ground to move forward.
For the topic areas related to our rulemaking effort, a CPSC staff member will moderate the panel session to focus the discussion on our open rulemaking topics. We are seeking new information that may be used to inform our rulemaking.
All attendees will be given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments during the panel session. At the close of the afternoon session, all groups will join for a plenary session, during which the groups will report on the results of their discussions.
If fewer than 15 panelists or less than 30 participants register for the Summit, we may cancel the Summit. If we decide to cancel the Summit for this or any other reason, we will post a cancellation notice on the registration Web page for the Summit and send an email to all registered participants who provide their email address when they register.
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service proposes to designate new and existing multi-use trails and administrative roads within the New River Gorge National River as bicycle routes. The rule is necessary because the National Park Service general regulation requires publication of a special regulation to designate routes for bicycle use when such use will be outside of developed areas and special use zones.
Comments must be received by October 26, 2012.
You may submit your comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AD95, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Jamie Fields, Outdoor Recreation Planner, New River Gorge National River, P.O. Box 246 (104 Main St), Glen Jean, WV 25846, (304) 465-6527,
The New River Gorge National River (NERI or park), a unit of the National Park System located in West Virginia, encompasses approximately 72,000 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River, extending from Hawks Nest State Park to Hinton. Congress directed the establishment of NERI as a unit of the National Park System, largely in response to a 20-year grassroots effort organized by local community leaders. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed legislation establishing the park, “for the purpose of conserving and interpreting outstanding natural, scenic, and historic values and objects in and around the New River Gorge and preserving as a free-flowing stream an important segment of the New River in West Virginia for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” Public Law 95-625, sec. 1101, 1978. Subsequent legislation concerning the park states in its findings that NERI “has provided the basis for increased recreation and tourism activities in southern West Virginia due to its nationally recognized status and has greatly contributed to the regional economy.” Public Law 100-534, sec. 2(a)(1)-(2), 1988.
The park's 1982 General Management Plan (1982 GMP) anticipated accommodating an expanding array of recreational pursuits, including off-road bicycling. It states that “[l]evels of use of new or unusual forms of recreation (such as hang gliding, rock climbing, dirt bicycling) will be managed to avoid problems of visitor safety, conflicts between uses, or resource impacts.” Page 18.
The 1982 GMP also anticipated trail construction as funding became available. A subsequent park-wide Trail Development Plan (1993) recommended that the park develop a trail system emphasizing multiple uses, including hiking and bicycling. Both of these plans can be viewed by going to the NERI park planning Web site,
The park began developing a new, updated general management plan in 2005 to respond to changes in park boundaries, land acquisitions, and park and public needs and priorities that had occurred since the 1982 GMP was approved. As a component of this process, and based upon an analysis of the park's enabling legislation and subsequent amendments, administrative history, resources, values and opportunities, NERI staff developed a Foundation Plan that determined that a major purpose of the park is to “provide opportunities for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the park's natural, cultural, scenic and recreational resources and values.” Page 5. As stated in the Foundation Plan, two major reasons that NERI is significant enough to have been designated as a unit of the National Park System are its “diverse and extraordinary scenic resources and views accessible to visitors from the river, rocky overlooks, trails and rural roads throughout the park, and its exceptional opportunities for exploration, adventure, discovery, solitude and community.” Page 6. Other purpose and significance statements that highlight the park's natural and cultural resources can be found in the Foundation Plan, which can be viewed by going to the NERI park planning Web site,
The park's updated 2010/2011 GMP and Environmental Impact Statement (2010/2011 GMP/EIS) process revealed substantial and consistent public support for designating routes in the park as bicycle trails during public scoping (February 2004 through October 2007) and public comment (January 13, 2010 through April 16, 2010).
The 2010/2011 GMP/EIS proposed that, after promulgation of the required special regulations and proper compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), bicycle use would be an appropriate use on new and existing trails. This would include bicycle use in frontcountry zones, in backcountry zones on single track trails, and on a limited basis on a variety of trail types in historic resource, river corridor, and park development zones. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS was signed, and the Notice of Availability was published in the
As a result of the public support for bicycle use expressed early in the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS process, the park developed an Environmental Assessment (Trails EA) to evaluate the impact of the construction of new trails and designation of new and existing park trails as routes for bicycle use. Public scoping for the Trails EA, which occurred from November 10, 2009 until January 15, 2010 (with a public focus group on November 10, 2009 and a public open house on December 8, 2009), confirmed there was overwhelming support for bicycle use on trails. Only one of approximately 400 scoping comments from residents of 32
The following trail terminology is used in the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS, the Trails EA, and the proposed rule:
•
•
•
•
•
• The term
• The difficulty of negotiating various trail sections in the two stacked loop trail systems is described in the Trails EA by designations of
○ Represented by a green circle, the easiest trails may be identified as “Easy” on interpretive kiosks and other publicly available media and are appropriate for bicyclists of a novice skill level. Easiest trails have firm surfaces with few obstacles, average trail grades of five percent or less, maximum grades of ten percent or less and are generally about 30 to 36 inches wide at the active trail tread.
○ Represented by a blue square, the more difficult trails may be designated as “Moderate” on interpretive kiosks and other publicly available media and are trails appropriate for bicyclists of an intermediate skill level. More difficult trails may include obstacles such as steps, stairs, and steep, exposed sections. Average trail grades on more difficult trails are ten percent or less, maximum grades are 15 percent or less, and active tread width is about 20 to 24 inches.
○ Represented by a black diamond, the most difficult trails may be designated as “Difficult” (or sometimes “Strenuous”) on interpretive kiosks and other publicly available media and are appropriate for bicyclists of an expert skill level. Most difficult trails include obstacles such as steps, stairs, and significantly steep or exposed sections, have average grades of 15 percent or less, but can include maximum grades of 15 percent or more. Active tread width of most difficult trails is generally 12 to 18 inches.
The Trails EA presented three alternatives. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and provided for the continuation of current management practices. Proposals common to both action alternatives (B and C) provided for the designation of some existing park trails and administrative roads as routes open to bicycle use, and for the construction and designation of three new trails for hiking and bicycle use by converting existing roads no longer used for vehicle access into the Mud Turn, Panther Branch Connector and Brooklyn Miner's Connector Trails.
Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative that became the NPS Selected Alternative, also provided for the development and construction of approximately 11 miles of new single track trail, called the Craig Branch Stacked Loop Trail System, and the development and construction of 33 miles of new single track trail, called the Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail System for hiking and bicycle use.
Alternative C provided for the development and construction of 4.5 miles of single track trail on existing informal routes, such as old logging roads, called the Craig Branch Stacked Loop Trail System, and the development and construction of 45 miles of new single track trail, much of which would also be constructed on existing informal routes, called the Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail System for bicycle use.
Of the 50 comments received on the Trails EA during the public comment period from January 26, 2011 through March 4, 2011, only two did not support the preferred alternative. One of these comments opposed the new trail development and did not mention bike use, and the other comment opposed bike use in natural areas, but did not specifically address NERI. The other 48 comments, most of which came from the local community of regular park visitors, supported bicycle use in the park.
Following public comment, the NPS selected the preferred alternative B, including the proposals common to both action alternatives. The NPS Northeast Regional Director signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on April 1, 2011. The Trails EA and FONSI can be viewed by going to the NERI park planning Web site,
Since the FONSI was signed, several trail names in the Nuttallburg area of the park have changed. The Nuttall Mine Trail (also an administrative road) was renamed the Headhouse Trail on public maps. The Nuttallburg Town Connector Trail was renamed the Nuttallburg Town Loop Connector Trail. The Nuttallburg Tipple Trail (also an administrative road) was broken up on public maps into the Tipple Trail and the Seldom Seen Trail. The actual trail/administrative road on the ground remains the same as the Nuttallburg Tipple Trail addressed in the EA and FONSI. The Keeneys Creek Trail has been renamed on some public maps and documents as the Keeneys Creek Rail Trail, but older materials still call it the Keeneys Creek Trail.
Since its construction in summer of 2011, the Craig Branch Stacked Loop Trail System has been renamed the Arrowhead Trail. The proposed rule and future park maps will reflect this change, while prior documents (primarily the Trails EA and FONSI) refer to the Craig Branch Stacked Loop Trail System. Additionally, the Trails EA and FONSI refer to the stacked loop trails in the Craig Branch (now Arrowhead) and Garden Ground areas as “trail systems.” In the proposed rule, they are called the “Arrowhead Trail” and the “Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail,” and are each treated as individual trails with interconnected segments.
Following the Trails EA and FONSI, the proposed rule would authorize bicycle use on two new stacked loop trail systems (the Arrowhead Trail and the Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail System), three new trails converted from existing roads that are no longer used for vehicle access (the Mud Turn, Panther Branch Connector and Brooklyn Miner's Connector Trails), and 19 existing trails and administrative roads throughout the park. All of the new trails are approved for construction through the FONSI, but only the Arrowhead Trail has been constructed.
The Arrowhead Trail includes 13 miles of easy and more difficult single track trail above the rim of the New River Gorge on rolling, forested terrain. The trail has been built according to the frontcountry trail standards outlined in the park's 2010/2011 GMP/EIS. The Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail would include approximately 33 miles of more difficult and most difficult single track trail traversing the edge of the plateau and along the bottom of the gorge parallel to the New River, with several challenging rim-to-river connections on the steep, forested slopes. The Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail segments will be built in accordance with the backcountry trail standards outlined in the park's 2010/2011 GMP/EIS. Both trail systems will connect to other existing park trails and incorporate sustainable design and construction elements that take multi-use (hike and bike) social and physical issues into account while also mitigating the impacts of hiking and bicycle use. As new trails are constructed, old logging roads and recreational vehicle routes on adjacent lands will be rehabilitated and invasive plant species will be treated or removed.
The proposed rule would designate three new trails that would be constructed by converting existing, unused roads into single track, multi-use (hike and bike) trails. The Mud Turn Trail would be located on an abandoned road that connects the rim at Grandview to the river along Glade Creek Road by running along Mill Creek for approximately 2.75 miles. The Panther Branch Connector Trail, approximately three miles long between Glade Creek and Panther Branch, would be located on an abandoned state road and on a short section of old rail bed that was abandoned in the 1940s. The Brooklyn Miner's Connector Trail, less than one mile long, would be located on segments of an abandoned coal road connecting the lower tipple to the upper mine bench of the Brooklyn Mine area. These proposed road-to-trail conversions would be built to the backcountry trail standards proposed in the park's 2010/2011 GMP/EIS and incorporate the same sustainable design and construction principles used in the Arrowhead Trail.
The proposed rule would designate 19 existing park trails and administrative roads, approximately 52 miles in total, to allow bicycle use. These are predominantly remnants of roads and railroad beds existing before the park was established or before the park had acquired land within its boundaries. Created primarily for logging and mining, some tracks were later developed or used for recreational purposes by local people on foot, and by off-road vehicle, motorcycle or bicycle. Once the park was established and the NPS acquired the land, these routes were adaptively reused as trails and administrative roads. Additional trails have since been constructed by NPS, most notably the Fayetteville Trail complex, which includes the backcountry Fayetteville Trail, the Park Loop, and the Timber Ridge Trail.
The proposed rule would authorize bicycle use on the routes listed and described in the tables below. Trails are labeled as Frontcountry, Backcountry, or Administrative Road in accordance with the management zones listed in the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS and the terms defined in the Trails EA. Trails that are only partially located on administrative roads are noted where appropriate.
Maps of these designated routes are available in the office of the Superintendent and may also be viewed in the Trails EA, which can be found by going to the NERI park planning Web site,
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The July 2011 NPS economic analysis estimated that the addition of more than 100 miles of new trails will significantly improve NERI's attractiveness to bicyclists and thus drive additional economic activity.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The rule will not impose restrictions on local businesses in the form of fees, training, recordkeeping, or other measures that would increase costs.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in section 2 of Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule only designates bicycle routes and manages bicycle use on those routes within the boundaries of the New River National River. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule only effects use of NPS administered lands. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
Throughout numerous past and current park planning processes, no expression of affiliation has been asserted with NERI by any tribal governments or organizations. Tribes that could potentially be affiliated were contacted individually during the development of the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS and no response was received. Copies of the Trails EA were sent to 14 Native American tribes who were identified as possibly having some interest in the
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission under the PRA is not required.
We have prepared environmental assessments to determine whether this rule would have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the NEPA. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because the NPS reached a FONSI for the Selected Alternative. The Trails EA, the FONSI and other relevant documents and records of the public process may be viewed by going to the NERI park planning Web site,
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1 (b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The primary authors of this proposed rule were Jamie Fields, New River Gorge National River; Joshua Nadas, NPS Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Programs; and Justin Hollimon, Regulations and Special Park Uses, National Park Service, Washington, DC.
National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPS proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:
1. The authority for part 7 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 10-137 (2001) and DC Code 50-2201 (2001).
2. In § 7.89 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b)
(2)
(3)
(A) A bicyclist must yield to an equestrian;
(B) A bicyclist must yield to a pedestrian; and
(C) A bicyclist travelling downhill must yield to a bicyclist travelling uphill.
(ii) Yielding the right of way requires slowing down to a safe speed, being prepared to stop, establishing communication, and passing safely.
(iii) Failure to yield is prohibited.
(4)
(i) The Superintendent will provide public notice of all such actions through
(ii) Violating a closure, condition, or restriction is prohibited.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on May 14, 2012, related to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for the Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman). Specifically, the May 14, 2012, SIP revision modifies the compliance date for the Eastman BART determination included in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision and provides a BART alternative determination option for Eastman. Together, Tennessee's April 4, 2008, and May 14, 2012, SIP revisions address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the “regional haze program”). EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision because it is consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations on regional haze BART determinations and BART alternative determinations.
Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0786, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Michele Notarianni, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at
On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee's SIP to address regional haze in mandatory federal Class I areas within the State and in mandatory federal Class I areas outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. On June 9, 2011,
After publication of EPA's June 2011 proposed action on Tennessee's regional haze SIP revision, the State and Eastman entered into discussions regarding a BART alternative determination that would give Eastman the option to comply with the regional haze BART requirements by converting its B-253 Powerhouse to natural gas in lieu of continuing to use coal and retrofitting its facility pursuant to the BART determination for sulfur dioxide (SO
On April 24, 2012, EPA took final action on Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision, with the exception of the BART determination for Eastman.
On May 14, 2012, TDEC submitted a supplement to its April 2008 Tennessee regional haze plan to EPA with a revised BART determination for Eastman. In summary, the May 14, 2012, SIP revision for Eastman: (1) Modifies the final compliance date to April 30, 2017, for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) establishes a BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. The SIP revision and Eastman's CAA title V operating permit stipulate that if Eastman elects to implement the BART alternative instead of the original BART determination, Eastman must begin construction on the BART alternative prior to April 30, 2017, and complete construction no later than the earlier of: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first long-term strategy (LTS) for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), states may choose to meet the BART requirements with a BART alternative. Section 51.308(e)(2) specifies the requirements that a state must meet to show that the alternative measure or alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. For a BART alternative, the state must submit an implementation plan containing, among other things, the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses:
(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state.
(B) A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the alternative program. The state is not required to include every BART source category or every BART-eligible source within a BART source category in an alternative program.
(C) An analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable for each source within the state subject to BART and covered by the alternative program. This analysis must be conducted by making a determination of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program.
(D) An analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the alternative measure.
(E) A determination that the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources.
(F) A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze. To meet this requirement, the State must provide a detailed description of the alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.
(G) A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
As previously mentioned, TDEC's May 14, 2012, SIP revision: (1) Modifies the final compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) establishes a BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. Specifically, the SIP revision and the associated operating permit (No. 066116H) create two options for Eastman to reduce its visibility impairing pollutants from the B-253 Powerhouse and satisfy the BART requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e). Eastman may install, operate, and maintain BART no later than April 30, 2017 (Option 1), or implement the BART alternative option to fuel switch its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) by the earlier of the following: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first LTS for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
The May 14, 2012, SIP revision requires Eastman to install, operate, and maintain BART no later than April 30, 2017, should Eastman decide not to pursue the BART alternative option
EPA proposes to find that the change in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to set a compliance date of April 30, 2017, for the original BART determination (as included in condition 1 of the May 9, 2012, permit for Eastman—number 066116H) is consistent with the CAA as well as EPA's regulations and guidance for BART determinations. Had EPA finalized its proposed action regarding the original Eastman BART determination on April 24, 2012, when the Agency took final action on the remainder of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision, the compliance date for the original BART determination would have been May 24, 2017. Therefore, this proposed compliance date accelerates the implementation of BART at Eastman, should Eastman decide not to implement the BART alternative option evaluated below.
The May 14, 2012, SIP revision also provides Eastman with the option to implement a BART alternative, in lieu of the original BART, that requires repowering the B-253 Powerhouse to natural gas by the earlier of the following: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first LTS for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
The BART alternative option is subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), as discussed in Section II of this proposed rulemaking, and is evaluated under these provisions in the following subsections.
Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision identified the following BART-eligible sources within Tennessee:
(1) Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa)—South Plant;
(2) DuPont White Pigment and Mineral Products (Humphreys County);
(3) Eastman Chemical Company—Tennessee Operations;
(4) E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Old Hickory);
(5) E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Shelby County);
(6) Holston Army Ammunition Plant;
(7) Inter-trade Holdings, Inc.;
(8) Liberty Fibers Corporation;
(9) Lucite International;
(10) Owens Corning;
(11) Packaging Corporation of America;
(12) PCS Nitrogen;
(13) Tennessee Valley Authority (WA)—Bull Run Fossil Plant;
(14) Tennessee Valley Authority—Cumberland Fossil Plant;
(15) Zinifex; and
(16) Weyerhaeuser Corporation (now Domtar Paper Company)—Sullivan County.
This list includes all BART-eligible sources in Tennessee, as determined by EPA in its April 24, 2012, final action on Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP.
The BART alternative option proposed in this action only pertains to the five boilers at Eastman's B-253 Powerhouse. It does not establish a trading program within the meaning of the federal BART regulations or include any other BART-eligible facilities.
In its April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision, Tennessee completed an analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable for Eastman and included a BART determination requiring the boilers in the B-253 Powerhouse to either reduce uncontrolled SO
Under the proposed BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas (Option 2), the SO
If there is no difference in the geographic distribution of BART-eligible source emissions between BART and the BART alternative, the BART alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress if it results in greater emissions reductions than BART (i.e., dispersion modeling is not required to evaluate the differences in visibility between BART and the BART alternative). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Since the BART alternative measure for the Eastman facility would result in a lower emission rate than BART and since there is no difference in the geographic distribution of emissions between BART and the BART alternative, EPA proposes to find that the BART alternative measure results in greater reasonable progress than BART.
The compliance date for BART (Option 1) is April 30, 2017, and the
Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision and associated operating permit require that Eastman comply with the BART alternative (should Eastman chose Option 2) no later than December 31, 2018, thereby satisfying the requirement that a source implement a BART alternative during the period of the first LTS. The operating permit also details the procedures for accounting and monitoring the emissions under the BART alternative. EPA previously approved Division Rule 1200-03-9-.02(6) into the Tennessee SIP which requires all permittees to comply with the conditions of their operating permit. Violation of the permit condition is, by definition, a violation of Division Rule 1200-03-9-.02(6) and grounds for enforcement action. As previously discussed, Tennessee provided a detailed description of the BART alternative and the expected emissions reductions.
Implementation of the Eastman BART alternative would result in surplus emissions reductions since the additional emissions reductions beyond BART are not required to meet any other provision of the CAA or any other TDEC requirements as of the date that the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board adopted Board Order 12-008.
EPA proposes to find that the change in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to establish a BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas is consistent with the CAA as well as EPA's regulations and guidance for BART alternative determinations.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by the State of Tennessee on May 14, 2012, related to the BART requirements for Eastman, which supplements the April 4, 2008, revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the BART alternative determination option for Eastman which would allow for the conversion of Eastman's B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. As a supplement to EPA's existing proposed action to approve the original Eastman BART determination, EPA is also now proposing to approve a compliance end date of April 17, 2018 for the original BART determination, should Eastman elect not to implement the BART alternative determination. EPA has preliminarily concluded that the Eastman BART alternative determination and proposed change to the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination meet the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) as described previously in this action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
On December 16, 2010, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1158, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 78654, in the December 16, 2010, issue of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
On December 16, 2009, FEMA published in the
Comments pertaining to the Bayou Grosse Tete Base Flood Elevations for the location approximately 0.47 mile downstream of I-190 and approximately 1.21 miles upstream of I-190 are to be submitted on or before November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1083, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
In the proposed rule published at 74 FR 66602, in the December 16, 2009, issue of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
On October 7, 2010, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1145, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 62061, in the October 7, 2010, issue of the
That table contained inaccurate information as to the location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, and/or communities affected for the following flooding sources: Big Elk Creek, Christina Creek, Dogwood Run, Little Elk Creek, Little Northeast Creek, Mill Creek, Northeast Creek, Tributary 1 to Stone Run, and West Branch Christina River. It also did not include the flooding source Tributary 2 to Stone Run, and the flooding source Christina River was erroneously referred to as Christina Creek. Additionally, the Town of Perryville has been added as a community affected by Mill Creek. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.
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.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
NIFA is requesting to continue to collect an update to the 5-Year Plan of Work which began with the Fiscal Year 2007, and as a result no longer needs to collect the initial 5-Year Plan. Also, as required by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L. 110-246, Sec. 7505), NIFA is working with the university partners in extension and research to review and identify measures to streamline the submission, reporting under, and implementation of plan of work requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has revised the United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice. The grade standards for grapefruit juice have been changed to remove the parameters for maximum “free and suspended pulp” to account for advances in industry processing technology.
Brian E. Griffin, Inspection and Standardization Branch, Processed Products Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 0709, South Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250; fax: (202) 690-1527; or Internet at
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1624-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official grade standards available upon request. Those voluntary U.S. Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, 7 CFR part 52, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is revising the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice using the procedures that appear in part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).
AMS received a petition from the Florida Citrus Processors Association, an association of citrus producers, requesting revisions to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice. The petitioner requested the removal of the maximum limit for “free and suspended pulp” (referred to in the industry as “sinking pulp”) from the U.S. grade standards for all forms of grapefruit juice.
The grade standards, effective since September 12, 1983, provided that grapefruit juice from concentrate, grapefruit juice, and frozen concentrated grapefruit juice establish limits for maximum free and suspended pulp as follows: “Grade A”—10 percent by volume, and “Grade B”—15 percent by volume. Concentrated grapefruit juice for manufacturing requirements for maximum free and suspended pulp are as follows: “Grade A”—10 percent by volume, and “Grade B”—12 percent by volume.
The petitioner believes that, with respect to maximum values for “free and suspended pulp”, the existing U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice do not take into account modern extraction and finishing technologies, nor are they supported by evidence of a correlation between these criteria and acceptable flavor. The petitioner also believes that removing the “free and suspended pulp” values from the grade standards would allow processors to process the entire grapefruit crop without resorting to expensive technologies that increase the cost of juice with no concomitant benefit. More mature grapefruit tends to be sweeter, but when juiced, tends to cause the product to exceed maximum free and suspended pulp values.
Processing technologies used in the early 1940s were considerably different than the technologies in place today. In the developmental stages of the citrus industry, the amount of sinking pulp was an indication of excessive pressures used in extraction and finishing of citrus juice, resulting in bitter flavor. It was noted that sinking pulp levels could be correlated to bitter flavor. The bitter flavors are due to the naturally occurring naringin and limonin components found in grapefruit juice. Although bitterness is an inherent contributor to what we know as “grapefruit flavor,” an excessive amount of bitterness can be objectionable to some consumers.
Current industry practices have shown us that sinking pulp levels can be greatly influenced by modern processing techniques, which eliminate the correlation between sinking pulp and excessive bitterness.
The petitioner submitted research data covering a six season period which illustrates levels of sinking pulp vs. naringin, and levels of sinking pulp vs. limonin using variations in extractor settings. The petitioner also submitted data on a sensory evaluation performed by the University of Florida on consumer acceptability of grapefruit juice with two free and suspended pulp levels. The petitioner's research data supports the premise that modern extraction and finishing technologies produce a product where there is no correlation between grapefruit juice flavor components associated with bitter and off flavor i.e., naringin and limonin, and free and suspended pulp levels.
Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising the
Two comments were received regarding this petition. One comment was from a trade association with international membership; and one comment was from a trade association in the U.S. representing over 8,000 citrus growers. Both comments were in support of the petition to remove the maximum limit for “free and suspended pulp” from the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice.
AMS sought public comments a second time on the petition (see 77 FR 6773). One comment was received regarding this petition from a trade association with international membership in support of the petition to remove the maximum limit for “free and suspended pulp” from the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice.
This revision of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice better reflects the current industry processing technology for grapefruit juice.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension and a revision of a currently approved information collection that supports Direct Loan Making programs. The information collection is in support of 7 CFR part 764, which sets forth the manner for a person may apply to FSA for Direct Loan Assistance. A new form is being added to this request to streamline the loan process.
We will consider comments that we receive by October 26, 2012.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Michael Moore at the above address.
Michael Moore, Senior Loan Officer, Farm Service Agency (202) 690-0651. Persons with disabilities who require alternative mean for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (Voice and TDD).
FSA is adding a new form to this information collection request. The new form is the FSA-2314 Streamlined Request for Direct OL Assistance. The new form is a streamlined version of a current form that will be used by some respondents. The burden hours have decreased due to lower number of responses by the current participants.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Determine whether the continued collection of information is still necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Assess the accuracy of the FSA's estimate of burden 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.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for the Office of Management and Budget approval.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces a fee of $170 to be charged for the 2013 tariff-
August 27, 2012.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, STOP 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021 or telephone at (202) 720-9439 or email at
The Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.37 provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles that are subject to TRQs set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The use of such licenses is monitored by the Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Programs and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) provides that a fee will be charged for each license issued to a person or firm by the Licensing Authority in order to defray the Department of Agriculture's costs of administering the licensing system under this regulation.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) also provides that the Licensing Authority will announce the annual fee for each license and that such fee will be set out in a notice to be published in the
Accordingly, notice is hereby given that the fee for each license issued to a person or firm for the 2013 calendar year, in accordance with 7 CFR 6.33, will be $170 per license.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou, OR Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Kerby, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects submitted for funding under Title II of The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000, review existing projects, and elect a chairperson.
The meeting will be held September 21, 2012, 8:30 a.m..
The meeting will be held at Rogue Community College, Illinois Valley Learning Center, Kerby Belt Building, 24353 Redwood Highway, Kerby, Oregon 97531. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information.
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Medford Interagency Office, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504. Please call ahead to (541) 618-2113 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Virginia Gibbons, Public Affairs Officer, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, (541) 618-2113,
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Requests for reasonable accomodation for access to the facility or procedings may be made by contacting the person listed For Further Information.
The following business will be conducted: Elect new Chairperson; review status of FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012 projects selected by the Siskiyou, OR Resource Advisory Committee; review and recommend FY2013 projects to the Designated Federal Official. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include a public forum period providing individuals the opportunity to make oral statements of three minutes or less.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The MedBow-Routt Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Walden, Colorado. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112-141) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under title II of the Act, as well as to update RAC members on the progress of previously approved projects.
The meeting will be held September 13, 2012 at 10 a.m., Mountain Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the Parks Ranger District Office, P.O. Box 158, 100 Main St., Walden, Colorado 80480. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Supervisor's Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming. Please call ahead to 307-745-2300 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Aaron Voos, RAC Coordinator, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, 307-745-2323 or
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: Review of the status of approved projects; discussion of travel reimbursement, review and discussion of new project proposal and public forum discussion. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session during the meeting will be provided and individuals who made written requests by Sept. 7, 2012 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that session. Written comments should be sent to Phil Cruz, RAC DFO, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070. Comments may also be sent via email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Daniel Boone National Forest Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in London, Kentucky. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112-141) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under title II of the Act.
The meeting will be held on September 18, 2012 beginning at 6 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Cumberland Valley Area Development District, 342 Old Whitley Road, London, Kentucky 40744 in a meeting room on the basement floor.
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Daniel Boone National Forest, 1700 Bypass Road, Winchester, Kentucky 40391. Please call ahead to 859-745-3100 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Kimberly Morgan, RAC Coordinator, Daniel Boone National Forest, 1700 Bypass Road, Winchester, Kentucky 40391; 859-745-3100; email
The following business will be conducted: Committee updates, status of 2011 approved projects, submitted projects, discussion of projects, and approval recommendations. The full agenda may be previewed at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
On October 10, 2008, NMFS published a final rule implementing
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 24, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the
Rebecca Pandolph, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3627.
On November 23, 2011, Petitioners
On November 23, 2011, Amini requested that the Department conduct a hearing in the above-referenced review.
On December 20, 2011, the Department received a separate rate certification from Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai. On December 29, 2011, the Department rejected the separate rate certification as untimely.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 20, 2012, which is hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the Web at <
The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds,
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) as “wooden * * * beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other * * * wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors * * * framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
In the
In the
The Department has reconsidered the facts of this case and the arguments made by interested parties. Based on the particular fact pattern present here, and for the reasons stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, the Department is rescinding the administrative review with respect to Tube-Smith.
In the
No parties commented on our intent to rescind. Because there is no information or argument on the record of the current review that warrants reconsidering our intent to rescind, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to the above-listed companies.
In the
No parties commented on our intent to rescind with respect to these companies. However, because as noted above, these companies were part of the PRC-wide entity during the POR, they have remained under review as part of the PRC-wide entity. Our determination with respect to the PRC-wide entity is explained below in the section entitled “Adverse Facts Available (AFA).”
In the
As explained in the
We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the POR:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
For Tube-Smith and the other entities for which the Department has rescinded this review which are not part of the PRC-wide entity, antidumping duties shall be assessed on period of review entries at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Antidumping duties shall be assessed on period of review entries from the PRC-wide entity at 216.01 percent.
In addition, pursuant to an injunction issued in
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3338.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period April 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty.
The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS) is organizing a Medical Trade Mission to Brazil from May 21-24, 2013 in conjunction with Hospitalar 2013—the region's major healthcare trade show—in Sao Paulo, Brazil's major healthcare industry hub. In addition to providing exposure to Brazilian buyers, the trade show also attracts a high number of visitors from Mexico, Central and South America, as well as attendees from Europe, Asia and Africa.
The Medical Trade Mission to Brazil is intended to include representatives from a variety of U.S. medical/healthcare industry manufacturers (equipment/devices, laboratory equipment, emergency equipment, diagnostic, physiotherapy and orthopedic, healthcare information technology, and other allied sectors), service providers, and trade associations. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling to Brazil on their own, will enhance the participants' ability to secure meetings in Brazil. Mission participants will have tabletop exhibits at the CS booth at Hospitalar and prearranged one-on-one appointments at the tables to introduce the participants to end-users and prospective partners whose needs and capabilities are best suited to each U.S. participant's strengths. The participants also will obtain first-hand information through briefings about the regulations, policies and procedures in the healthcare industry. Trade mission participants will have the opportunity to interact extensively with Embassy/Consulate Officials and Commercial Service (CS) Brazil healthcare specialist to discuss industry developments, opportunities, and sales strategies.
Brazil is the largest medical equipment market in South America. The total market for medical equipment in Brazil should continue to expand approximately 15% through 2012. Brazil is both a major medical equipment producer and importer. This industry consists of a number of related products and services, including:
• Medical equipment and devices;
• Dental equipment and products;
• Radiological and diagnostic imaging equipment; and
• Laboratory equipment.
Brazilian medical equipment revenues in 2011 reached an estimated US$6.056 billion, which represents an increase of 20% from the previous year. The United States accounts for approximately 30% of the import market, with U.S. sales mainly going through local agents, distributors and importers who sell to hospitals and clinics. The market for electro-medical equipment is around US$200 million, which represents approximately 50% of total sales in Latin America. In 2011, imports for in vitro diagnostics reagents and devices increased approximately 20%.
There are few high-quality Brazilian manufacturers of advanced medical products, so Brazil's reliance on imports should continue for some time. Local buyers view U.S. and other foreign products (mainly Canadian and European) as having comparable quality and reliability. Thus, financing terms often become the differentiating criteria in making a sale.
Brazil's strengthened currency has meant that private and public hospitals have greater purchasing power, and with continued expansion of Brazil's private healthcare sector, the market should grow. Approximately 80% of all products used in hospitals have no similar manufacturing in the country and must be imported. New opportunities for U.S. exporters abound, particularly for advanced medical equipment, disposables, diagnostic devices, implants and components.
The market for home healthcare products has been increasing in recent years. Brazilian health insurance companies are responsible for paying 99% of the costs related to home care treatment, and as such, the U.S. Commercial Service sees the market for home healthcare products growing dramatically during the coming years. Brazil's Regional Nursing Council is currently developing procedures on how to regulate this market, including standards for health professionals.
In addition to the attractive size of the Brazilian medical market, U.S. exporters should consider the opportunities offered by Mercosur, and use Brazil as a “spring board” for export into Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Since compulsory product registration before sale is required for all of MERCOSUR countries, U.S. exporters should consult a local lawyer/consultant before signing a contract with any agent/distributor.
The growth in this industry makes it very attractive for U.S. companies, both large companies already doing business in the market but also and especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and new-to-market (NTM) companies.
The goal of the Medical Trade Mission to Brazil is to (1) Familiarize the participants with the current healthcare market as well as the developments taking place in Brazil, (2) introduce participants to strategic
U.S. participants will be counseled before and after the mission by U.S. Export Assistance Center trade specialists, primarily by members of the Global Healthcare Team. Participation in the mission will include the following:
• Pre-travel briefings/Webinar on subjects ranging from business practices in Brazil to security;
• Consulate briefings on the business climate, political scenario, medical/healthcare industry scenario;
• Pre-scheduled meetings with potential partners, distributors, end users, or local industry contacts;
• Showcase your company using a tabletop display at Hospitalar 2013—includes table with two chairs, unlimited Internet access;
• Complimentary promotion and listing on the official Hospitalar 2013 portal;
• Listed in Hospitalar 2013 hard copy exhibitor catalog;
• Advanced promotion to top local contacts of the U.S. Commercial Service network in Brazil, Mexico, and throughout Central and South America.
Mission participants will be encouraged to arrive Monday, May 20, 2013 to allow time to adjust to their new surroundings before the mission program begins on Tuesday, May 21.
All parties interested in participating in the Brazil Medical Trade Mission must complete and submit an application for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 8 and a maximum of 12 companies will be selected to participate in the mission. U.S. companies already doing business in Brazil as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter the Brazilian market for the first time may apply.
After a company or organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee per company will be $3,850 for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, (or in the case of a trade association or trade organization, information on the products and/or services of the companies to be represented on the trade mission), primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Suitability of a company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services to the mission's goals.
• Company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in Brazil, including likelihood of exports resulting from the trade mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the trade mission.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than March 8, 2013. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of twelve (12) participants is reached. We will inform all applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after the applications are reviewed. Applications received after the March 8 deadline will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Applications can be completed on-line at the Trade Mission Web site or can be obtained by contacting Pompeya Lambrecht at the U.S. Department of Commerce (see contact details below.) Completed applications should be submitted to Pompeya Lambrecht.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 26, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to John Clary at (206) 526-4039 or email
The groundfish tagging program provides scientists with information necessary for effective conservation, management, and scientific understanding of the groundfish fishery off Alaska and the Northwest Pacific. The program area includes the Pacific Ocean off Alaska (the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area, and the Alexander Archipelago of Southeast Alaska), California, Oregon, and Washington. Fish movement information from recovered tags is used in population dynamics models for stock assessment. There are two general categories of tags. Simple plastic tags (spaghetti tags) are external tags approximately two inches long printed with code numbers. When a tag is returned the tag number is correlated with databases of released, tagged fish to determine the net movement and growth rate of the tagged fish. Archival tags are microchips with sensors encased in plastic cylinders that record the depth, temperature or other data, which can be downloaded electronically from the recovered tags. The groundfish tagging and tag recovery program is part of the fishery resource assessment and data collection that NMFS conducts under the Magnuson-Stevens Act authority as codified in 16 U.S.C. 1801(a)(8).
This is a volunteer program requiring the actual tag from the fish to be returned, along with recovery information. Reporting forms with pre-addressed and postage-free envelopes are distributed to processors and catcher vessels.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 26, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Eric Thunberg, (508) 495-2272 or
This request is for an extension and revision of a currently approved generic collection.
Economic data for selected United States (U.S.) commercial fisheries will be collected for each of the following groups of operations, based on pre-approved questions: (1) Processors, including onshore plants, floating processing plants, mothership vessels, and catcher/processor vessels; (2) first receivers of fish, including dealers, wholesalers, and auctions; (3) catcher vessels; and (4) for-hire vessels. Companies associated with these groups will be surveyed for expenditure, earnings, effort, ownership, and employment data; and basic demographic data on fishing and processing crews. These economic data collection programs contribute to legally mandated analyses required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (EO 12866 and EO 13563) as well as a variety of state statutes including Florida Statute 120.54, Hawaii Revised Statute 201M-2, New Jersey Permanent Statutes 52:14B-19 and Oregon Revised Statutes 183.335 and 183.540.
In general, questions will be asked concerning ex-vessel and wholesale prices and revenue, variable and fixed costs, expenditures, effort, ownership, dependence on the fisheries, and fishery employment. The data collection efforts will be coordinated to reduce the additional burden for those who participate in multiple fisheries. Participation in these data collections will be voluntary.
The data will be used for the following three purposes: (1) To monitor the economic performance of these fisheries through primary processing; (2) to analyze the economic performance effects of current management measures; and (3) to analyze the economic performance effects of alternative management measures. The measures of economic performance to be supported by this data collection program include the following: (1) contribution to net national benefit; (2) contribution to income of groups of participants in the fisheries (i.e., fishermen, vessel owners, processing plant employees, and processing plant owners); (3) employment; (4) regional economic impacts (income and employment); and (5) factor utilizations rates. As required by law, the confidentiality of the data will be protected.
Data collections will focus each year on a different component of the U.S. commercial fisheries, with only limited data collected in previously surveyed components of these fisheries. The latter will be done to update the models that will be used to track economic performance and to evaluate the economic effects of alternative management actions. This cycle of data collection will facilitate economic performance data being available and updated for all the components of the U.S. commercial fisheries identified above.
The surveys will be conducted via mail, phone and in-person interview. In general, respondents will be mailed a copy of the survey instrument in advance of a phone or in-person interview. Where feasible, survey respondents will be provided with the option to respond to a survey on-line or other electronic medium.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of a scientific research permit.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Permit 14513 to Dr. Stephanie Carlson of University of California, Berkeley.
The approved application for the permit is available on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS),
Jeffrey Jahn at 707-575-6097, or email:
The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits.
This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon (
A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research permit (14513) was published in the
Permit 14513 is for research to be conducted in the Lagunitas Creek watershed in Marin County, the Pescadero Creek watershed in San Mateo County, and the Eel River watershed in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, California. The main purpose of the research is to conduct research on, and monitor salmon populations in these watersheds. Permit 14513 authorizes capturing (backpack electrofisher, traps, seine, dip net, hook and line), observing (snorkel surveys), anesthetizing, handling (identify, measure, weigh), marking (Passive Integrated Transponder tags, fin clips), sample (scales, gastric lavage, otolith), and release of Central California Coast (CCC) coho salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon, Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead, Northern California (NC)steelhead, and California Coastal (CC) Chinook Salmon, henceforth referred to as ESA-listed salmonids.
Permit 14513 authorizes non-lethal take and low levels of unintentional lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids, as well as adult carcasses of these species. Permit 14513 does not authorize any lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids except for a limited number of moribund CCC steelhead that may occur in Pescadero Creek.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Ninety-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the queen conch (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by October 26, 2012.
You may submit information, identified by the code 0648-XB140, addressed to: Calusa Horn, Natural Resource Specialist, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Calusa Horn, NMFS, Southeast Region, (727) 824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8469.
On February 27, 2012, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians to list queen conch (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in making a determination whether a petitioned action “may be” warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a “strong likelihood” or a “high probability” that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
The queen conch (
Queen conch are believed to live up to 30 years (McCarthy, 2007). Shell morphology is highly plastic and habitat appears to exert a strong influence on juvenile and adult morphology and growth (Martin-Mora
Queen conch reach reproductive maturity, though highly variable, between 3 and 4 years of age or after the shell has developed the flared lip (Theile, 2001; Davis, 2005; McCarthy, 2007). It is widely believed that adult queen conch migrate to shallow waters to form large spawning aggregations. However, Stoner
We have determined, based on the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files, that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, species taxonomic description, geographic distribution, preferred habitat characteristics, population status and trends, and threats contributing to the species' decline, and it is accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation. Below is a synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files.
The petition states that the primary threat to the queen conch is overexploitation by fisheries. The queen conch is commercially harvested in 25 countries throughout the Caribbean region (Acosta, 2006). Queen conch meat is mainly consumed as food, but is also used as bait. Queen conch shells are generally considered a by-product of the fisheries and are discarded at sea, though some are sold as jewelry or curios (NMFS, 2011a). The United States is the largest importer of queen conch from the Caribbean, importing approximately 78 percent of the queen conch meat in international trade (Davis, 2005), equaling approximately 2,000 to 2,500 tons of queen conch meat annually (Theile, 2002; CITES, 2005).
The petition asserts that queen conch annual landings have increased substantially in order to meet growing international demand. The petition references queen conch landings from several of the largest exporting countries in the Caribbean region, stating that Jamaica, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic each declare approximately 1,000 tons of queen conch meat landed annually; followed by the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos which land approximately 680 and 780 tons, respectively (Theile, 2002; as cited by the petition). For perspective, 4,500 tons of conch meat is equivalent to approximately 31 million individuals (CITES, 2005). The petition also claims that queen conch landings are “grossly underestimated” because landings data are limited and do not account for high levels of illegal and unreported harvest. Several citations caution that queen conch landings are likely greater than reported, referencing large scale foreign poaching and illegal trade (i.e., at sea transfer) by neighbouring territories and
The petitioner asserts that queen conch is being harvested at unsustainable levels, resulting in population declines, stock collapses, as well as recruitment and reproductive failure. In the 1980s, increased international demand and subsequent commercial exploitation resulted in several stocks being reduced to levels where the populations can no longer recover (Paris
The petitioner also claims that the overfishing of queen conch populations has led to population densities so low that a mate finding Allee effect is preventing recruitment and prohibiting the species' ability to recover from overexploitation. The Allee effect occurs when population growth is limited by the reduced likelihood of finding a mate due to low population densities. In addition, the decrease in abundance of reproductively mature adults (spawning stock) can lead to reduced survival or production of eggs causing depensation issues. Animals, like the queen conch, that require close proximity for fertilization of eggs are particularly vulnerable to depensation problems (Stoner
The information presented by the petitioner and information in our files indicates that queen conch populations in many Caribbean countries are declining or have declined as a result of overexploitation. In addition, some Caribbean countries have overexploited queen conch populations to such low levels that depensation is impacting recruitment and recovery. Taken in combination, this information suggests that overexploitation may pose an extinction risk of concern to the queen conch.
The petitioner also claims that water pollution in the form of heavy metals is a significant threat to queen conch populations. The petition discussed the threat of water pollution under “the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range” listing factor. However, the available information suggests that water pollution is having a physiological impact on queen conch reproduction, which is an effect to the animal. Therefore, we believe that this threat is more appropriately addressed under the “other natural and manmade factors” listing factor.
The petition cites several peer-reviewed publications and research studies that show queen conch in south Florida are incapable of reproduction due to pollutants in their environment. In the Florida Keys, studies have confirmed a complete cessation of queen conch spawning in nearshore areas, whereas offshore queen conch have normal reproductive development (Glazer and Quinteri, 1998; McCarthy
Delgado
The literature in the petition and information available in our files suggests that water pollution in south Florida is significantly impacting queen conch physiology and is affecting the population's growth and impeding the recovery of the historically overfished populations. The information provided by the petitioner and in our files is limited to the south Florida populations. We do not have information regarding the occurrence of this threat in other areas of the species range. However, it is possible that Caribbean populations may be experiencing similar physiological effects resulting from water pollution. Based on the information available to us at this time, we believe water pollution may pose a significant risk to the species if it is occurring elsewhere.
In addition to the information on overutilization and water pollution, the petitioner also provided information on the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of seagrass nursery habitat, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and manmade factors affecting the species existence. Because we have determined that the information provided on overutilization and other natural or manmade factors presents substantial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted, we are not conducting a detailed analysis of this other information here.
We have determined after reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, that there is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, based on the threats of overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or education purposes and other natural or manmade factors. Because we have found that substantial information was presented on the above factors, we will commence a status review of the species. During our status review, we will fully address all five of the factors set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. At the conclusion of the status review, we will determine whether the petitioned action is warranted.
As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we are to commence a review of the status of the species and make a determination within 12 months of receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned action is warranted. We intend that any final action resulting from this review be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we open a 60-day public comment period to solicit information from the public, government agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties on the status of the queen conch throughout its range including: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) biological information (life history, genetics, population connectivity, etc.); (4) landings and trade data; (5) management, regulatory, and enforcement information; (6) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; and (7) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(b)) require that a listing determination be based solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data, without consideration of possible economic or other impacts of the determination. During the 60-day public comment period we are seeking information related only to the status of the queen conch throughout its range.
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. The Office of Management and Budget issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went into effect June 16, 2005, and generally requires that all “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific information” disseminated on or after that date be peer reviewed. Because the information used to evaluate this petition may be considered “influential scientific information,” we solicit the names of recognized experts in the field that could take part in the peer review process for this status review (see
A complete list of references is available upon request from the Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resource Division (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Ninety-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list five species of sturgeon (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by October 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2012-0142, addressed to: Dwayne Meadows, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Hand delivery: You may hand deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the street address given above.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted to
Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
On March 12, 2012, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians and Friends of Animals to list 15 species of sturgeon (
We acknowledged receipt of this petition in a letter dated April 14, 2012, and informed the petitioners that we would determine, pursuant to section 4 of the ESA, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. As a result of subsequent discussions between us and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), we have determined that 10 of the 15 petitioned sturgeon species are not marine or anadromous and thus not within our jurisdiction; therefore, those 10 species are the responsibility of the FWS. Accordingly, this 90-day finding considers whether the petitioned actions may be warranted for only the five marine or anadromous sturgeon species included in the petition:
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-FWS policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and FWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives both the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and
Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in making a determination whether a petitioned action “may be” warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a “strong likelihood” or a “high probability” that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition including its references, as well as the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but the classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide.” (
All five of the petitioned species for which we have jurisdiction are migratory and spawn in freshwater habitats while spending part of their life cycle in marine or estuarine waters (i.e., they are anadromous). They are benthic oriented feeders, eating mostly invertebrates and small fishes. All five of the species are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
We have determined, based on the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files, that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted for the five species under our jurisdiction. The petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, species taxonomic description, geographic distribution, preferred habitat characteristics, population status and trends, threats contributing to the species' decline, and is accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation. We agree that each of the five petitioned species is a valid taxonomic species. We have no specific information in our files that indicates the petition's status information is incorrect, unreliable, or obsolete. Below is a synopsis of our analysis of the status information provided in the petition and readily available in our files for each species.
The IUCN first rated
The IUCN first assessed
The IUCN first assessed
The IUCN first assessed
The IUCN first assessed
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned actions of listing five species of sturgeon, or DPSs of these species, under our jurisdiction as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of these species and make determinations within 12 months of receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned actions are warranted.
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on whether these five sturgeon species are endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas throughout the range of these species: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) biological information (life history, genetics, population connectivity, DPS structure, etc.); (4) landings and trade data; (5) management, regulatory, and enforcement information; (6) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; and (7) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
A complete list of references is available upon request from NMFS Protected Resources Headquarters Office (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 28 Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Spanish mackerel and cobia assessment webinar.
The SEDAR 28 assessment of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Spanish mackerel and cobia fisheries will consist of a series of workshops and supplemental webinars. This notice is for a webinar associated with the Assessment portion of the SEDAR process.
The SEDAR 28 Assessment Workshop Webinar #8 will be held on September 12, 2012, 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. EDT. The established time may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to, the times established by this notice.
The webinar will be held via a GoToMeeting Webinar Conference. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Ryan Rindone at SEDAR (see
Ryan Rindone, SEDAR Coordinator, 2203 N Lois Ave, Suite 1100, Tampa FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630; email:
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, has implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process involving a workshop and webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Panelists will continue deliberations and discussions regarding modeling methodologies for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Spanish mackerel and cobia fisheries.
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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet September 13-18, 2012. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Friday, September 14, 2012 at 10 a.m., reconvening each day through Tuesday, September 18, 2012. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held at the end of business on Friday, September 14 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 Riverside Hotel, 2900 Chinden Boulevard, Boise, ID 83714; telephone: (208) 343-1871.
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 before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council 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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
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; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a bird mitigation research trial in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to the USFWS to take, by Level B harassment only, five species of marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 26, 2012.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
NMFS received an application on April 17, 2012, from the USFWS for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a bird mitigation research trial in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. Upon receipt of additional information and a revised application, NMFS determined the application adequate and complete on July 27, 2012. The USFWS plans to conduct a research trial to assess potential bird hazing methods that could be used to minimize the risk of rodent bait ingestion by non-target species, if such an alternative action is chosen, during a proposed house mouse eradication. NMFS is proposing to issue an IHA to the USFWS because hazing methods used during the research trial may result in Level B harassment of the Northern elephant seal (
The purpose of the proposed project is to assess potential bird hazing methods that could be used to minimize the risk of rodent bait ingestion by non-target species during a house mouse eradication for the South Farallon Islands of the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. House mice were introduced to the South Farallon Islands during the 19th century and have resulted in considerable ecosystem degradation. House mice seem to be indirectly impacting the breeding success of burrow-nesting seabirds, such as the ashy storm-petrel, and have also been identified as vectors of diseases that result in mass mortalities of marine mammals. Removal of the invasive house mice would protect seabirds, assist in the recovery of native plants and endemic species, and prevent the spread of disease to marine mammals. Although the proposed project would take place when most seabirds are absent, some bird species may be at risk of ingesting the toxic bait. Therefore, the USFWS is proposing a number of mitigation efforts that include a bird hazing program.
Hazing methods may incidentally result in the harassment of pinnipeds that haul out on the island. The following gull hazing techniques are likely to be used during the proposed research trial: Lasers, spotlights, pyrotechnics, biosonics, predator calls, air cannons, Mylar tape, small helicopter, human presence, kites, radio-controlled aircraft, and trained dogs. While all of these techniques may not be available, funded, or used in the trial, they are all being considered to reduce non-target bird mortality. Up to five biologists would be present on the islands to implement the research trial and monitor any pinniped disturbance. Since the trial is intended to allow researchers to test an array of gull hazing techniques, the USFWS cannot specify the exact protocol that would be implemented. However, part of the USFWS' goal during this trial is to determine which hazing methods are most effective at (1) deterring birds from roosting on the island and (2) minimizing the impacts to pinnipeds. Therefore, researchers would carefully monitor pinnipeds haul-outs during hazing and adjust the research trial to reduce disturbance. The possible gull hazing techniques are described in detail below.
Two different handheld lasers could be used during the research trial: Red or green Avian Dissuader(R) (50mW) and handheld green laser pointer (5mW). These lasers would likely be used during pre-dawn hours to haze gulls already settled on the island. Use of the laser involves shining the beam briefly in a sweeping motion at the gull roost, which instigates a flight response in most birds. The lasers would not be directed at pinnipeds' eyes and pinnipeds are not known to react to this type of equipment. Once gulls are no longer spending the night on the island, the lasers would be used to haze gulls attempting to land on the island just prior to sunrise. Lasers would also be used in the evenings to enhance the use of pyrotechnics and reach areas that are not readily accessible or could not be hazed with pyrotechnics due to pinniped presence. Two short nighttime laser sweeps of 30-60 minutes could be attempted on each island. The lasers are expected to have a very low impact on pinnipeds because they would not be directed at haul-outs. However, researchers may need to approach a haul-out in order to access certain locations. The presence of researchers could result in temporary behavioral harassment.
One or 10-million candlepower spotlights could be used during pre-dawn hours to haze gulls already settled on the island. Once gulls no longer spend the night on the island and presence is restricted to marine ledges, the spotlight may also be tested to haze gulls intermittently settling on ledges. Two short nighttime sweeps by gull roosting areas may be attempted in order to haze any gulls that might have settled back on the island during the course of the night. Like the lasers, the spotlight is expected to have a very low impact on pinnipeds because it will not typically be directed at haul-outs. However, if birds roost near a haul-out, the spotlight may need to be used around the vicinity of pinnipeds and the visual stimulus could result in temporary behavioral harassment. The spotlight beam, while bright, is not so focused that it would cause retinal injury.
Up to three Bird-Guard broadcasting units (bird distress calls) could be used to deter gulls from settling on the island, as well as encourage them to flee if they are already present. Speakers may be placed in accessible locations. Additionally, up to three Bird Gard® SUPER PRO systems could be used to cover problem gull areas on each island. A number of electronic chips with both gull distress and predator calls could be used. The bird calls are naturally occurring sounds and are not expected to cause harassment of pinnipeds. The placement of the speakers is also not expected to cause harassment of pinnipeds because haul-out sites would be avoided. Temporary harassment of pinnipeds would only occur if the only place to locate a speaker system is near a haul-out site. The sound source levels would depend on how many speakers are used, how loud the amplifier is set to, the types of calls used, etc. Sound levels may be measured on site at the beginning of the research trial. The presence of researchers is more likely to disturb pinnipeds than the sound levels being emitted from the speakers.
Pyrotechnics could be used to deter gulls during daylight hours. They would
A zon gun air cannon may be used to deter birds that repeatedly attempt to settle on the island. This technique involves a propane canister that charges a cylinder to produce a loud sound periodically. If pyrotechnics prove to be effective and do not appear to affect marine mammals, this technique may also be used. Detonation volume is adjustable between 100 and 125 dB. Placement of this unit would be as to avoid exceeding the hearing threshold of pinnipeds. The USFWS would use the lowest setting if haul-outs are close, but may experiment with increasing the volume at farther distances. The louder the zon gun volume, the larger the area that the USFWS would be able to cover for bird hazing. Behavioral response of pinnipeds would be monitored and the zon gun volume would be adjusted at the first sign of large scale disturbance.
A helicopter may be used during the research trial to haze gulls in remote portions of the islands and for operational purposes. More specifically, a helicopter may be used for the following: Monitoring the islands to determine the location and numbers of gulls and pinnipeds in remote areas that cannot be seen from Southeast Farallon Island observation points; moving and deploying personnel and equipment to and from areas inaccessible by foot; and conducting radio-telemetry flights to examine movement patterns of gulls and the efficacy of hazing. To avoid or minimize pinniped disturbance, helicopter flights in areas near haul-outs would use a slow sequential approach of decreasing altitude in order to habituate the marine mammals to the sound. This approach has been used successfully during rodent removal operations on Anacapa Island in 2001-2002 and on Rat Island in 2009.
Up to five researchers may access areas on West End Island in order to investigate possible gull roosting areas, haze gulls, and monitor pinniped responses to hazing activities. Researchers would approach haul-outs slowly and cautiously in order to avoid unnecessary disturbance to pinnipeds.
The use of 5-10 predator kites (such as Eagle or Helikites) or radio-controlled aircraft may be used to haze gulls. Most kites would be used to haze gulls at a short distance. This technique would be used sparingly around harbor seals, as they may be more easily spooked than other pinniped species. If a kite or radio-controlled aircraft falls into a haul-out area, then it would either be: (1) Left in place if it could not be retrieved safely or without causing major pinniped disturbance (stampede of large number of animals); or (2) retrieved using a slow methodical approach to avoid major disturbances to pinnipeds. Retrieval may also occur at a later time when pinnipeds are either absent or in fewer numbers.
Bamboo poles measuring about two meters in length with one-meter lengths of Mylar tied to them could be placed in areas commonly used by gulls in order to deter them from settling. While not expected, the visual stimulus of the Mylar tape may result in temporary behavioral harassment of pinnipeds or the placement of the poles by researchers could cause temporary disturbance to pinnipeds in the area.
Well-trained herding working dogs (e.g., border collies) may be used to haze birds in certain areas. These dogs are trained to not harass pinnipeds and would have the necessary immunizations and certificates to ensure that no diseases are transmittable. Dogs would be kept at least 30 meters away from pinnipeds. However, the dogs' presence and barking may result in temporary behavioral harassment of pinnipeds.
The proposed project would take place over a 2-4 week period between November 1, 2012 and January 31, 2013. The exact timing would be dependent on seasonal variations in weather, effectiveness, gull abundance and distribution, access to the island, equipment funding, staff, and required permits. During the 2-4 week period, gull roosts would be visited at least twice a day by researchers for hazing or monitoring. Most visits would last about 15 minutes, although human presence may last for 2-5 hours per day if necessary. Most hazing would take place a few hours before and after sunrise and sunset. Sporadic gull hazing may also occur as needed throughout the day and night.
The proposed project would take place in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, a group of islands about 30 miles offshore of San Francisco, California. The refuge was established in 1909 specifically to protect sea birds and pinnipeds and it currently sustains the largest sea bird breeding colony south of Alaska, including 30 percent of California's nesting sea birds. Five pinniped species also breed or haul out on the Farallon Islands. The proposed project would be conducted in the South Farallon Islands, which are composed of Southeast Farallon Island, West End Island, Aulon Islets, and Saddle Rock. Most of the gull hazing is expected to occur within Southeast Farallon Island; however, hazing may be implemented around other areas of the island if gulls attempt to roost. The majority of the island's perimeter is considered a potential haul-out for pinnipeds. Species-specific haul-out and pupping sites are provided in the Description of Marine Mammals section of this notice.
For background, sound is a mechanical disturbance consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 µPa” and “re: 1
The use of biosonics, pyrotechnics, and zon guns may result in elevated sound levels that exceed NMFS' threshold for in-air harassment. Current NMFS practice regarding in-air exposure of pinnipeds to sound generated from human activity is that the onset of Level B harassment for harbor seals and all other pinnipeds is 90 dB and 100 dB re: 20µPa, respectively. The USFWS intends to use bird hazing methods that cause the least amount of marine mammal harassment, while still preventing birds from settling on the island. Biosonics, pyrotechnics, and zon guns would be initially used at distances to avoid the onset of Level B harassment. Only if bird hazing methods are still unsuccessful from distant locations would these techniques be used closer to pinniped haul-outs.
The following marine mammal species may be present in the proposed project area during the research trial: Northern elephant seals, harbor seals, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and Northern fur seals. Below is a summary of the status, distribution, and seasonality of each species that may be affected by the research trial.
Northern elephant seals are the largest “true” seal in the Northern Hemisphere, reaching lengths of over 4 meters. They are found in the eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, ranging from Alaska to Mexico. They spend most of their time in the ocean, diving to depths of 330-800 meters and prefer sandy beaches when they come ashore for breeding and pupping. The Northern elephant seal 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. Elephant seals congregate in central California to breed from late December to March. Females typically give birth to a single pup and attend the pup for up to 6 weeks. Once the pups are weaned, mating occurs 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 3 weeks. On South Farallon Island, northern elephant seal haul outs are located in areas known as Sea Lion Cove, North Landing, and Garbage Gulch—all within or adjacent to southeast Farallon area. Pupping takes place in areas known as Shell Beach, Indian Head, and Mirounga Beach, on the western and southern parts of the island.
The Northern elephant seal was exploited for its oil during the 18th and 19th centuries and by 1900 the population was reduced to 20-30 individuals on Guadalupe Island (Hoelzel
A complete population count of elephant seals is not possible because all age classes are not ashore at the same time. The most recent estimate of the California breeding stock was about 124,000 individuals. Based on trends in pup counts, northern elephant seal colonies were continuing to grow in California through 2005, but appear to be stable or slowly decreasing in Mexico. Northern elephant seals are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) nor depleted under the MMPA.
Harbor seals are one of the most widely distributed northern hemisphere pinnipeds and are found in coastal, estuarine, and sometimes fresh water of both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. On the west coast, harbor seals range from Baja California to the Bering Sea. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice for rest, thermal regulation, pupping, and social interaction. NMFS recognizes seven U.S. stocks for management purposes: Bering Sea, California, Gulf of Alaska, Oregon-Washington Coastal, southeast Alaska, Washington Inland, and Western North Atlantic. Any harbor seals in around the Farallon Islands would be part of the California stock. In California, approximately 400-600 harbor seal haul-out sites are widely distributed along the mainland and on offshore islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores, and beaches (Hanan 1996; Lowry
A complete count of all harbor seals in California is impossible because some are always away from the haul-out sites. The most recent counts estimate the California population to number 30,196 individuals. Counts of harbor seals in California increased from 1981 to 2004 with the highest statewide count occurring in 2004. In central California, harbor seals breed annually from March through May and molt in June and July. Females give birth to a single pup and attend the pup for around 30 days, at which time they wean pups. Mating occurs in the water around the time of weaning. Harbor seals are not listed under the ESA nor depleted under the MMPA.
California sea lions range from southern Mexico up to British Columbia, residing in shallow coastal and estuarine waters. They prefer sandy beaches for hauling out, but are often seen on marina docks, jetties, and buoys in California. California sea lions breed almost entirely on islands in southern California, Western Baja California, and the Gulf of California. In recent years, they have begun to breed annually in small numbers at Año Nuevo Island and South Farallon Islands, California. The breeding season lasts from May to August and mating takes place shortly after birth. On the Farallon Islands, California sea lions haul out in many intertidal areas year round, fluctuating from several hundred to several thousand animals. The small number of breeding animals is concentrated in areas where researchers do not visit. The entire population of California sea lions cannot be counted because all age and sex classes are not ashore at the same time. However, based on pup counts, the current population estimate is 296,750. After removing data from El Nino years (when pup production is decreased), pup counts between 1975 and 2008 suggest an annual increase of 5.4 percent. California sea lions are not listed under the ESA nor depleted under the MMPA.
Steller sea lions reside along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan through the Aleutian Islands to California. They prefer the colder temperate to sub-arctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Steller sea lions haul out on beaches, ledges, and rocky reefs to rest and breed. The U.S. population is divided into the western and eastern distinct population segment, with the eastern distinct population segment including any individuals in California. The eastern stock of Steller sea lions breeds on rookeries located in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California.
Combining the pup count data from 2005-2009 (11,120) and non-pup count data from 2008 (31,246) results in a minimum abundance estimate of 42,366 Steller sea lions in the western U.S. stock in 2005-2009 (M. DeAngelis, NMFS, pers. comm.). Using the most recent 2006-2009 pup counts available by region from aerial surveys across the range of the eastern stock (total N=13,889), the total population of the eastern stock of Steller sea lions is estimated to be within the range of 58,334 to 72,223 (Carretta
Steller sea lion numbers in California, especially in southern and central California, have declined from historic numbers. Counts in California between 1927 and 1947 ranged between 4,000 and 6,000 non-pups with no apparent trend, but have subsequently declined by over 50 percent, and were between 1,500 and 2,000 non-pups during the period 1980 to 2004. At Año Nuevo Island, a steady decline in ground counts started around 1970, and there was an 85 percent reduction in the breeding population by 1987 (LeBoeuf
On Southeast Farallon Island, California, the abundance of females declined an average of 3.6 percent per year from 1974 to 1997 (Sydeman and Allen, 1999). Steller sea lions give birth from May through July and mating occurs a couple of weeks after birth. Non-reproductive animals congregate at a few haul-out sites. Pups are weaned during the winter and spring of the following year. On the Farallon Islands, Steller sea lion breeding colonies are strictly protected to reduce or eliminate risk of human disturbance; access to these areas is rarely permitted.
In 1990, the Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species under the ESA. On April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23209), NMFS published a proposed rule to delist the eastern distinct population segment. A public comment period was open through June 18, 2012. No final determination has been made. Under the MMPA, the Steller sea lion is depleted throughout its range.
Northern fur seals range across the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, as far south as the Channel Islands in California. They spend most of their time in the open ocean, but rely on rock beaches for reproduction. Concentrations of fur seals may in the open ocean near major oceanographic features, such as seamounts, canyons, or along the continental shelf break, due to prey availability. Three breeding locations are found in the U.S. and three in Russia. The peak pupping season is usually in early July and pups are weaned by October or November. At the end of the breeding season, northern fur seals travel south and remain pelagic for the winter migration period.
The majority of individuals breed on the Pribilof Islands off the coast of mainland Alaska (Testa, 2007); however, there have been declines in the number of pups produced each year by as much as 50 percent from previous seasons (Towell
There are two stocks of northern fur seals recognized in U.S. waters: the eastern Pacific stock and the San Miguel Island stock. Any animals found on the Farallon Islands would be part of the San Miguel Island stock. The most recent population estimate for this stock is 9,968 animals. The population of northern fur seals on San Miguel Island has increased steadily since its discovery in 1968, except for severe declines in 1983 and 1998 associated with El Niño events. Recovery from the 1998 decline has been slow. Although the Farallones were a major northern fur seal breeding area before the arrival of hunters in the early 19th century, the species was essentially extirpated from the region by the second half of that century (Wilson and Ruff, 1999). Not until 1996 did northern fur seals begin breeding again on the Farallones (Pyle
Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species and others in the region can be found in the USFWS application, which is available online (see
Variable numbers of northern elephant seals, harbor seals, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and northern fur seals typically haul out around the perimeter of South Farallon Island. Pinnipeds likely to be affected by the bird mitigation trial are those that are hauled out on land at or near the location of gull hazing. Incidental harassment may result if hauled out animals are disturbed by elevated sound levels or the presence of lasers, spotlights, humans, helicopters, or dogs. Although pinnipeds would not be deliberately approached by researchers, approach may be unavoidable if pinnipeds are hauled out in the immediate vicinity of roosting birds. Disturbance may result in behavioral reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not necessarily consider the lesser reactions to constitute Level B behavioral harassment, but does assume that pinnipeds that move greater than one meter or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the gull hazing methods are behaviorally harassed.
Typically, even those reactions constituting Level B harassment would result at most in temporary, short-term disturbance. Due to the limited duration of the research trial (maximum 4 weeks of periodic daily hazing methods), disturbance of pinnipeds would only last for short periods of time and would not occur continuously over the 4-week period. Pinnipeds are unlikely to incur significant impacts to their survival because potential harassment would be sporadic and of low intensity. Although there is a risk of injury or mortality if pinniped pups are crushed during a stampede, the USFWS is not proposing to implement hazing methods during the pupping season. The USFWS
In summary, NMFS believes it highly unlikely that the proposed activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds. Any harassment resulting from the bird mitigation research trial is expected to be in the form of Level B behavioral harassment.
The USFWS' proposed activity is not expected to result in the physical alteration of marine mammal habitat. Any impacts resulting from the proposed activity (e.g., short periods of ensonification) would be temporary and no major breeding habitat would be affected. There are no expected impacts to pinniped prey species. Critical habitat has been defined for Steller sea lions as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones, which includes Southeast Farallon Island. Overall, the proposed activity is not expected to cause significant impacts on habitats used by the marine mammal species in the proposed project area or on the food sources that they utilize.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
The USFWS is proposing to conduct the bird mitigation research trial at a time when there are fewer birds on the island and outside of pinniped pupping season. The proposed schedule for this research would greatly reduce the possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds resulting from pups being crushed during a stampede. Pregnant northern elephant seals begin to arrive on the island in late December and early January. Remaining pups from the previous breeding season typically leave the island by November. While hazing operations are not expected to overlap with the presence of northern elephant seal pups, the USFWS will actively avoid pregnant females and pups during the research trial by having a biologist identify and map where these individuals are located.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measure and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety and practicality of implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, 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 ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
The USFWS would designate at least one NMFS' approved protected species observer to monitor pinnipeds and collect information before, during, and after hazing operations. This observer would be located at the peak of the island's center, which provides visibility of about 70 percent of the island. If hazing operations take place in areas not visible from the island's peak, additional observers would be used to monitor and record information from other locations. Before hazing operations begin, observers would record the number and species of animals in the area. During hazing operations, observers would record the species that react to hazing operations, any change in behavior that occurs, the number of animals that flush (or leave their haul-out), and the number of flushing events. After the hazing operations, observers would record the number and species of animals remaining in the area. Observers would be in communication with the hazing trial implementation staff in order to relay information on pinniped behavioral responses. Observers would be able to halt hazing activities if they result in unexpected pinniped reactions (e.g., stampeding).
If funding and personnel are available, and based on NMFS recommendation, the USFWS would monitor sound levels of biosonics, pyrotechnics, and zon guns to evaluate the potential exposure levels of pinnipeds to these techniques. If practicable, the USFWS would measure received sound levels at varying distances from the source to determine the distance at which NMFS' in-air thresholds are reached. Results from these measurements would potentially allow the USFWS to determine how far away they need to conduct certain hazing methods.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, the USFWS would immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the USFWS to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), the USFWS would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the USFWS would report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Current NMFS practice regarding in-air exposure of pinnipeds to sound generated from human activity is that the onset of Level B harassment for harbor seals and all other pinnipeds is 90 dB and 100 dB re: 20µPa, respectively. These threshold levels are based on monitoring of marine mammal reactions to rocket launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In those studies, not all harbor seals left a haul-out during a launch unless the sound exposure level was 100 dB or above and only short-term effects were detected.
The USFWS estimated take by using the maximum pinniped counts from weekly censuses in November 2006-2011. These numbers represent the highest count ever recorded for each species during the month of November since 2006. November typically has the highest pinniped counts compared to December and January (the period when the proposed activity would take place). These numbers provide the best available information on haul-outs in the proposed action area. The USFWS' take estimates for the length of the trial are shown in Table 1.
NMFS believes these take estimates are conservative because the USFWS used maximum counts of hauled out pinnipeds during the months of the proposed activity and these numbers do not take mitigation measures into consideration. Researchers would make every effort to minimize the take of pinnipeds (e.g., by using hazing methods at the farthest possible distance from haul-outs); moreover, many pinnipeds do not haul out near typical gull roosts. Frequency of harassment would depend upon the location of gulls and the success of hazing operations. Pinnipeds may be disturbed as much as twice per day for the duration of the 2-4 week trial. Table 1 shows the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during the proposed activity; however, each individual may be exposed to activities that result in harassment as much as twice per day for 2-4 weeks. The USFWS' proposed mitigation measures would likely result in fewer takes.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which would be authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.
As described above, marine mammals would not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. Rather, NMFS expects that some marine mammals may be exposed to elevated sound levels or visual stimuli that would result in Level B behavioral harassment. Marine mammals may avoid the area or temporarily change their behavior (e.g., move towards the water) in response to research presence or elevated sound levels. No impacts to marine mammal reproduction are expected because the proposed activity would not take place during pinniped pupping season.
Proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to lessen the potential impacts to marine mammals (e.g., avoiding pinniped haul-outs). NMFS expects any impacts to pinnipeds to be temporary, Level B behavioral harassment. Marine mammal injury or mortality is unlikely because of the expected sound levels, avoidance of pinniped haul outs, and avoidance of pupping season. The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is considered small relative to the estimated stock sizes. Less than one percent of the stock would be harassed for Northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions; and less than two percent of the stock would be harassed for California sea lions and Northern fur seals. There is no anticipated effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival of affected marine mammals.
Based on the analysis of the likely effects of the proposed activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and considering the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily determines that the USFWS' proposed research mitigation
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
The only marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area is the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion. On April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23209), NMFS published a proposed rule to delist the eastern DPS. A public comment period was open through June 18, 2012. No final determination has been made. Under section 7 of the ESA, the USFWS has begun consultation with NMFS on the proposed bird mitigation research trial. NMFS also initiated consultation internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.
NMFS is currently conducting an analysis, pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this proposed IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to the bird mitigation research trial, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 12-42 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Iraq has requested a proposed sale of commercially available Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Control and Landing System/Navigational Aids. The system will include an ASR-11 Radar, Autotrac II simulator, Instrument Landing System, and Airfield Lighting System, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, site survey, installation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $60 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country.
The proposed sale will contribute to Iraq's continued efforts toward rebuilding their airfield systems at Tikrit Air Base for near-term basing of multiple aircraft. The renovations and upgrades to the airfield and its systems will allow for greater ease in launch and recovery of aircraft and will benefit the overall sustainment of aircraft and affiliated systems over time. This equipment aids Iraq's continuing reconstruction effort that directly improves Iraq's ability to control its own airspace.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor is unknown and will be selected through competitive process. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Iraq.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat 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 Taxpayer Identification Number Information.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (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 October 26, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0097, Taxpayer Identification Number Information, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, (202) 501-1448 or email at
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 7701(c), a contractor doing business with a Government agency is required to furnish its Tax Identification Number (TIN) to that agency. 31 U.S.C. 3325(d) requires the Government to include, with each certified voucher prepared by the Government payment office and submitted to a disbursing official, the TIN of the contractor receiving payment under the voucher. 26 U.S.C. 6050M, as implemented in the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations at Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), requires heads of Federal executive agencies to report certain information to the IRS. 26 U.S.C. 6041 and 6041A, as implemented in 26 CFR, in part, requires payors, including Government agencies, to report to the IRS, on form 1099, payments made to certain contractors.
To comply with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 7701(c) and 3325(d), reporting requirements of 26 U.S.C. 6041, 6041A, and 6050M, and implementing regulations issued by the IRS in 26 CFR, FAR clause 52.204-3, Taxpayer Identification, requires a potential Government contractor to submit, among other information, its TIN. The TIN may be used by the Government to collect and report on any delinquent amounts arising out of the contractor's relationship with the Government. A contractor is not required to provide its TIN on each contract in accordance with FAR clause 52.204-3, Taxpayer Identification, when FAR clause 52.204-7, Central Contractor
The annual reporting burden decreased from what was published in the
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat 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 contractors' purchasing systems reviews.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (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 October 26, 2012.
Submit comments identified by
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0132, Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0132, Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews” on your attached document.
•
•
Ms. Patricia Corrigan, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 208-1963 or email at
The objective of a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR), as discussed in Part 44 of the FAR, is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting. The review provides the administrative contracting officer a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of the contractor's purchasing system.
There is no single data collection process or system, e.g., Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), that identifies the number of CPSRs conducted governmentwide. To date no public comments or questions have been received regarding the burden estimates included in the currently approved clearance. However, for purposes of this clearance, the estimated Average Burden Per Response is estimated at 25 hours per completion. Based on coordination with a Government agency that conducts CPSRs, the estimate has been adjusted upwards from the current 17 hours to 25 hours, in order to provide a more accurate accounting of the contractors' time necessary for reading information and preparing for a CSPR.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension of an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat 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 Price Redetermination.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; 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 October 26, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0071, Price Redetermination, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 501-1448 or email
FAR 16.205, Fixed-price contracts with prospective price redetermination, provides for firm fixed prices for an initial period of the contract with prospective redetermination at stated times during performance. FAR 16.206, Fixed price contracts with retroactive price redetermination, provides for a fixed ceiling price and retroactive price redetermination within the ceiling after completion of the contract. In order for the amounts of price adjustments to be determined, the firms performing under these contracts must provide information to the Government regarding their expenditures and anticipated costs. The information is used to establish fair price adjustments to Federal contracts.
The estimated total burden is lower than that published the
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of reinstatement request for an information collection requirement regarding an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat 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 Qualification Requirements.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this
Submit comments on or before October 26, 2012.
Submit comments identified by
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0083, Qualification Requirements”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0083, Qualification Requirements” on your attached document.
•
•
Ms. Patricia Corrigan, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 208-1963 or
FAR subpart 9.2 and the associated clause at FAR 52.209-1, implement the statutory requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2319 and 41 U.S.C. 3311, which allows an agency to establish a qualification requirement for testing or other quality assurance demonstration that must be completed by an offeror before award of a contract. Under the qualification requirements, an end item, or a component thereof, may be required to be prequalified. The clause at FAR 52.209-1, Qualification Requirements, requires offerors who have met the qualification requirements to identify the offeror's name, the manufacturer's name, source's name, the item name, service identification, and test number (to the extent known).
The contracting officer uses the information to determine eligibility for award when the clause at 52.209-1 is included in the solicitation. Alternatively, items not yet listed may be considered for award upon the submission of evidence of qualification with the offer.
There is no Governmentwide data collection process or system, e.g., Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) which identifies the number of solicitations issued that include qualification requirements. To date, no public comments or questions have been received regarding the burden estimates included in the currently approved clearance. However, a change is being made regarding the estimated number of responses annually from 100 (in the currently approved burden) to a more appropriate estimated average of 5 responses annually (i.e., the number of proposals received per solicitation issued). For purposes of this clearance, time required to read and prepare information remains at 15 minutes per submission assuming an offeror's use of electronic information tracking and retrieval processes.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
This notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of the meeting on October 23-25, 2012 is to review new start research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1 million. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 24 from 9 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. and Thursday, October 25 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
George Mason Conference Room at Metro Offices, 4601 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 1200, Arlington, VA 22203.
Mr. Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 17D08 Alexandria, VA 22350-3600, by telephone at (571) 372-6384.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC). The purpose of the Council meeting is to review the military family programs which will be the focus for the Council for next year, and address
The meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space. Persons desiring to attend may contact Ms. Melody McDonald at 571-372-0880 or email
Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Council. Persons desiring to submit a written statement to the Council must notify the point of contact listed in
September 20, 2012, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Pentagon Conference Center B6 (escorts will be provided from the Pentagon Metro entrance).
Ms. Melody McDonald or Ms. Betsy Graham, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community & Family Policy), 4800 Mark Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Room 3G15. Telephones (571) 372-0880; (571) 372-0881 and/or email:
Meeting agenda.
Exact order may vary.
Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force/Air Force Office of Scientific Research (DoD/USAF/AFOSR).
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Air Force Office of Scientific Research, ATTN: AFOSR/RSPP, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 325, Room 3112, Arlington, VA 22203-1768, or email
Respondents are students enrolled in doctoral programs in science and engineering desiring to complete their education. The on-line, electronic application provides information necessary for evaluation and selection of fellowships.
The NDSEG fellowships allow recipients to pursue their graduate studies at whichever United States institution they choose to attend. The goal is to provide the United States with talented, doctorally trained American men and women who will lead state of the art research projects in disciplines having the greatest payoff to national defense requirements. Approximately 190-200 3-year fellowships are anticipated to be awarded in the fields of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Cognitive, Neural, and Behavioral Sciences, Computer and Computational Sciences, Electrical Engineering, Geosciences, Material Science and Engineering, Mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Oceanography, and Physics.
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold an informal conference followed by a public hearing on Wednesday, September 12, 2012. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regularly scheduled business meeting. The conference session and business meeting both are open to the public and will be held at the Commission's office building located at 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, New Jersey.
The morning conference session will begin at 11 a.m. and will include updates by DRBC staff on the Nutrient Strategy for the Delaware Estuary and Implementation of the Basin Plan.
Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the informational meeting, conference session or hearings should contact the Commission Secretary directly at 609-883-9500 ext. 203 or through the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) at 711, to discuss how we can accommodate your needs.
This request from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), is for clearance for the full scale data collection for the 2012-13 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS:2013) and Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS:2013) to the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS:2012). The seventh cycle of SASS (2011-12) is currently being conducted and the proposed TFS:2013 will be the seventh corresponding cycle of TFS, while PFS:2013 will be the second cycle of PFS. The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is an in-depth, nationally-representative survey of first through twelfth grade public and private school teachers, principals, schools, library media centers, and school districts. Kindergarten teachers in schools with at least a first grade are also surveyed. For traditional public school districts, principals, schools, teachers, and school libraries, the survey estimates are state-representative. For public charter schools, principals, teachers, and school libraries, the survey estimates are nationally-representative. For private school principals, schools, and teachers, the survey estimates are representative of private school types. The TFS is a survey of teachers with the main purpose of providing a one-year teacher attrition rate. The PFS is a survey of principals that assesses how many school principals work in the same school as reported a year earlier in SASS:2012, how many have moved to become a principal at another school, and how many have left the principalship altogether. Similar to earlier TFS collections, the TFS:2013 sample of 7,000 teachers (drawn using a sampling design similar to that used in earlier TFS collections) is a sub-sample of the teachers who responded to SASS:2012. The PFS:2013 sample includes all of the approximately 9,800 schools whose principals completed questionnaires in SASS:2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 26, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information
The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) is a nationally representative study of two high school grade cohorts (spring 2002 tenth-graders and spring 2004 twelfth-graders) comprising over 16,000 sample members. The study focuses on achievement growth in mathematics in the high school years and its correlates, the family and school social context of secondary education, transitions from high school to postsecondary education and/or the labor market, and experiences during the postsecondary years. Major topics covered for the postsecondary years include postsecondary education access, choice, and persistence; baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate attainment; the work experiences of the non-college-bound; and other markers of adult status such as family formation, civic participation, and other young adult life course developments. This collection includes the third follow-up 2012 full scale data collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 26, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2 p.m.-4 p.m.
NNMCAB Conference Room, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, September 20, 2012, 6 p.m.
Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.
Breaks Taken as Appropriate.
Department of Energy.
Notice of partially-closed meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a partially closed meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
Friday, September 7, 2012.
The meeting will be held at the National Academy of Sciences (in the Lecture Room), 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at:
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues, logistical circumstances, and member's availability.
The public comment period for this meeting will take place on September 7, 2012, at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at
Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.
Department of Energy, Office of Science.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Friday, September 21, 2012, 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877, 301-977-8900.
Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536
The NSAC Meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. You may find out how to access this broadcast by going to the following site prior to the start of the meeting:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
The EIA has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Uranium Data Program, OMB Control Number 1905-0160. The proposed collection will modify and continue the use of Form EIA-851A “Domestic Uranium Production Report (Annual),” Form EIA-851Q “Domestic Uranium Production Report (Quarterly),” and the Form EIA-858 “Uranium Marketing Annual Survey.” EIA proposed minor changes to Form EIA-851Q and its reporting instructions, and to the reporting instructions to Form EIA-851A and Form EIA-858.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 26, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the
And to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Douglas Bonnar at the contact information given above. Forms and instructions are also available on the Internet at:
This information collection request contains: (1)
Take notice that on August 7, 2012, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in the above captioned docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction of its High Plains 2013 Expansion Project. The project consists of: (i) A new 7.75 mile, 24-inch diameter pipeline, the Lancaster Lateral, in Weld County, Colorado; (ii) an overpressure protection facility; (iii) two new receipt meter stations, and (iv) the modification of existing facilities. Also CIG requests a predetermination of rolled in rate treatment related to the cost of service on the new facilities that will allow CIG to meet market demand for transportation service on the High Plains System from new natural gas processing facilities to the Cheyenne Hub located in Weld County, Colorado, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and opens to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944 at (719) 667-7517 or by fax at (719) 667-7534 or Mark A. Minich, General Counsel, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944 at (719) 520-4416 or by fax at (719) 520-4415.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on August 8, 2012, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for authorization to replace approximately 2,167 feet of existing 30-inch pipeline on Transco's mainline in East Brandywine and East Caln Townships, Chester County, Pennsylvania with a 42-inch pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The 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 concerning this application may be directed to Scott Turkington, Director Rates & Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396, by telephone at (713) 215-3391 or by email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. 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.
Motions to intervene, protests, and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
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.
k.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
The Well 2 development would consist of: (1) An existing powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 118.6 kilowatts; and (2) appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates Well 2 would have an average annual generation of 0.512 gigawatt-hour.
The Well 4 development would consist of: (1) An existing powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with a total installed capacity of 60.1 kilowatts; and (2) appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates Well 4 would have an average annual generation of 0.259 gigawatt-hour.
The Well 8 development would consist of: (1) An existing powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 55.7 kilowatts; and (2) appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates that Well 8 would have an average annual generation of 0.240 gigawatt-hour.
The entire project would have a total installed capacity of 234.4 kilowatts and an average annual generation of 1.012 gigawatt-hours.
m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
n. Development Application—Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
p. Protests or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing the original and seven copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
Take notice that on August 9, 2012, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP12-499-000, an application pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to abandon in place two standby compressor units and abandon in place or remove related appurtenant equipment at its Glade Spring
East Tennessee proposes to abandon in place two standby 660 horsepower reciprocating natural gas compressor units and abandon in place or remove related appurtenant equipment at the Glade Spring Compressor Station. East Tennessee states that the two standby compressor units are outdated and their abandonment would have no effect on any of East Tennessee's transportation customers. East Tennessee also states that in order to install additional noise control equipment and update the two compressor units would require significant capital investment. Further, East Tennessee estimates that it would cost $15,900,942 to construct these facilities today.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates & Certificates, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or via telephone at (713) 627-4102, facsimile (713) 627-5947, or via email:
This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
As announced in the Notices issued on July 5, 2012
The West region technical conference will be held at the following venue: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Portland, 1000 NE Multnomah Street, Portland, OR, 97232, USA, Tel (reservations and other information): 1-503-281-6111, 1-800-996-0510 (toll free).
If you have not already done so, those who plan to attend the West region technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the registration form located at:
The West region technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there will be a free audiocast of the conference. The audiocast will allow persons to listen to the West region technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to the West region conference can do so by navigating to
Information on this and the other regional technical conferences will also be posted on the Web site
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this and the other regional technical conferences, please contact: Pamela Silberstein, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8938,
The Western region consists of bilateral markets, trading hubs, and the organized wholesale energy markets of the California ISO (CAISO), and varying access to fuel supplies and natural gas storage across several sub-regions. Public and non-public utilities may participate in these markets. Commenters in the West stress the need for regional and even sub-regional approaches to gas-electric coordination, in light of the different market structures and mix of resources that co-exist. The Commission anticipates that the differing perspectives of the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain, Desert Southwest, and California sub-regions will be reflected in the discussion of gas-electric coordination topics and challenges.
Many within the Western region expect that a significant portion of new generating capacity installed in the next ten years will use natural gas as its primary fuel, which has raised concerns for some regarding the sufficiency of pipeline capacity to accommodate this growth in gas-fired generation. Approaches to addressing infrastructure adequacy also vary across the region. Some commenters stress the need for cost recovery mechanisms or other market enhancements that provide incentives for appropriate fuel arrangements. Others emphasize regionally-based approaches to determine whether this is demand for additional pipeline capacity and services, or whether there are ways the region can better deploy existing capacity to meet demand growth. Some commenters suggest that the Commission has a role to play, in terms of possible refinements to its blanket certificate process.
While some pipelines offer flexible pipeline and storage services, commenters suggest that more flexibility and additional nomination opportunities are needed by operators of gas-fired generation in some areas. Commenters differ on the impact of the mismatch in the scheduling and delivery timelines between the gas and electric industries, with some calling for greater harmonization between natural gas trading and transportation nomination and scheduling timelines and electricity trading and scheduling times within the West, and others contending that the gas-electric mismatch presents no significant challenges or that it is a longer-term issue.
Roundtable participants are encouraged to be prepared to discuss the following:
1. Describe the policies and practices in your region that impact the procurement of gas transportation and storage capacity purchases by gas-fired generators. What changes do you expect, if any, as the use of gas for electric generation increases? Salt River Project in its comments suggests the possible development of a gas-sharing pool similar to regional electric reserve sharing pools.
2. How does your region approach the question of gas infrastructure adequacy? Are there reforms to the organized wholesale electric market rules that CAISO could consider as a possible means to allow a gas-fired generator to recover the costs of contracting for gas infrastructure expansion needed to serve electric markets in the region? To what extent do bilateral contracts provide for the recovery of such costs, both in CAISO and in the areas that do not have organized markets? Commenters like Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget Sound Energy) suggest that the immediate need to add infrastructure could be minimized by allowing pipeline capacity release for periods longer than one year at greater than maximum tariff rate.
3. What types of services offered by natural gas pipelines and storage providers throughout the West would best meet the needs of gas-fired generators in the region? Recognizing that some pipelines offer additional nomination opportunities beyond the current standards, would generators like to see additional operating flexibility in pipeline services, and if so, what kind? For example, one commenter
4. How diverse (or consistent) are nomination, scheduling and commitment practices across the region? How do the regions' utilities and generators manage the mismatch between the scheduling and commitment timelines on the electric side in local time and the NAESB standard gas pipeline practices? Are there areas in the West where this is more of a problem to generators than elsewhere? If so, can the gas and electric market scheduling timelines be adjusted in a way that improves matters for those regions where it is a problem?
Each of the sub-regions that make up the West has experienced unexpected events that highlighted the need for improved communication and coordination between electric and gas entities: For example, Denver/the Rockies in December 2006; the Pacific Northwest in December 2009; California in September 2010; and the Southwest in February and September 2011.
Comments suggest that improving communications protocols between the gas and electric industry is one issue that may lend itself to more immediate resolution than other gas-electric coordination issues. This panel will discuss whether there are adequate communication protocols among the various stakeholders to assure appropriate gas-electric coordination and identify potential solutions to any issues.
Roundtable participants are encouraged to be prepared to discuss the following:
1. How are coordination and information-sharing regarding both emergency and planned outages handled by affected gas and electric entities in the different regions? Are improvements needed? Several entities in the Northwest stated that the gas and electric utility planners in the Northwest have initiated regular meetings to address resiliency in a coordinated manner.
2. The gas pipelines in California and the CAISO have worked to improve their coordination of planned outages. What is the impact of electric system outages upon the gas system, and vice versa? Are further changes needed to allow for the coordination of planned outages? Will the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 impose new requirements upon inter-industry communication and coordination? If so, how are the industries planning for those new requirements?
3. Several commenters identified the nature of information that currently is available and shared between gas and electric entities. Is there additional information that needs to be shared that currently is not being shared, and are all the relevant and necessary parties included? Are the information-sharing mechanisms appropriate to the circumstances? Are improvements needed and who should be responsible for implementing improvements?
4. Parties in the West region expect increased reliance on gas-fired generators to result in greater daily fluctuations in gas usage than have been experienced in the past. For example, the 2012 California Gas Report prepared by the California Gas and Electric Utilities projects that there will be higher daily fluctuations in gas usage in the future, associated with the increase in renewable generation in the state.
5. Based on the experience in your region, what aspects of the FERC Standards of Conduct (which govern the relationship between a transmission provider and its marketing function) need to be clarified or potentially revised to improve gas-electric communications and coordination? For example, Puget Sound Energy recommends that the Commission should clarify that the exception for a transmission provider to disclose non-public transmission information with its merchant function should not be limited solely to an emergency on the transmission provider's system. Rather, Puget Sound Energy suggests that the exception be broadened to include non-emergency situations to prevent an emergency and also to permit communications to alleviate emergencies on a nearby/regional transmission provider's system.
The bulk electric system is typically planned, as required by the mandatory reliability standards, to meet projected customer demands and system performance criteria, even under single element contingency conditions. Interstate natural gas pipelines are planned and expanded to meet firm gas delivery contracts between the pipelines and one or more shippers. As noted
Roundtable participants are encouraged to be prepared to discuss the following:
1. Is there a need for a minimum level of dependability in the fuel supply for gas-fired generators? How would it be defined, who would define it, and what would be the mechanism for accomplishing this? To what extent is the dependability of fuel supply a required specification in standardized contract documents for buying and selling electricity? Should this be addressed regionally, and how can it be addressed in the regions without organized markets? What role can or do State Commissions play in defining or otherwise supporting requirements for fuel dependability in all of the Western subregions?
2. Several commenters express concern about whether there are particular reliability concerns in areas that lack underground natural gas storage. What tools are available to regions to manage gas-fired generation swings and preserve reliability, in areas without gas storage? What happens when there are events that impact pipeline deliverability in those regions?
3. To what extent do the regions in the West coordinate studies of the natural gas and electric systems to analyze forecasted resource mix and/or interdependency risks from curtailments or contingencies? Can this be addressed through existing transmission planning processes or are different processes needed?
4. Commenters from California and the Northwest highlighted ongoing coordination efforts that allowed participants from the natural gas and electric industries, as well as state regulators, to assess emergency response plans and provided a forum to discuss and implement improvements.
Electric markets in the West function differently in California, the Pacific Northwest and in the rest of the Western Interconnect. To the extent not discussed in the earlier roundtable discussions, we'll discuss these differences as well as any specific issues of concern to one or more of these sub-regions not touched on earlier.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of extension of comment period.
The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the first draft assessment documents titled,
Comments should be submitted on or before October 12, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions related to the draft document titled,
For questions related to the draft document titled,
For questions related to the draft document titled,
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for these listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section
As part of EPA's review of the primary and secondary ozone (O
On July 16, 2012 EPA made available the first draft documents
On August 15, EPA made available updates to the first draft Health and Welfare REAs, along with several technical memos and appendices. Updates to the Health REA include Chapter 6 which describes risk analyses based on application of results from human clinical studies, an updated Chapter 9 which incorporates the findings from Chapter 6, and several corrections to other chapters, including corrected table numbers in Chapter 5, and corrected references in several locations. Updates to the Welfare REA include additional analyses described in Chapter 6 which provide estimates of damages from O
In addition, on August 15, 2012 EPA made available the first draft document titled
The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of these draft documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC that will be held September 11-13, 2012. Information about these public meetings, including the dates and locations, was published in a separate notice in the
The draft documents briefly described above do not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising the documents.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Maritime Commission is publishing an updated list of controlled carriers, i.e., ocean common carriers operating in U.S.-foreign trades that are owned or controlled by foreign governments. Such carriers are subject to special regulatory oversight by the Commission under the Shipping Act of 1984.
Rebecca A. Fenneman, General Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523-5740.
The Federal Maritime Commission is publishing an updated list of controlled carriers. Section 3(8) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40102(8)), defines a “controlled carrier” as:
An ocean common carrier that is, or whose operating assets are, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by a government, with ownership or control by a government being deemed to exist for a carrier if—
(A) A majority of the interest in the carrier is owned or controlled in any manner by that government, an agency of that government, or a public or private person controlled by that government; or
(B) That government has the right to appoint or disapprove the appointment of a majority of the directors, the chief operating officer, or the chief executive officer of the carrier.
As required by the Shipping Act, controlled carriers are subject to special oversight by the Commission. Section 9(a) of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40701(b)), states:
The Federal Maritime Commission, at any time after notice and opportunity for a hearing, may prohibit the publication or use of a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation that a controlled carrier has failed to demonstrate is just and reasonable.
Congress enacted these protections to ensure that controlled carries, whose marketplace decision-making can be influenced by foreign governmental priorities or by their access to non-market sources of capital, do not engage in unreasonable below-market pricing practices which could disrupt trade or harm privately-owned shipping companies.
The controlled carrier list is not a comprehensive list of foreign-owned or -controlled ships or ship owners; rather, it is only a list of ocean common carriers that are controlled by governments.
Since the last publication of this list on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24581), the Commission has newly classified one ocean common carrier as a controlled carrier, Hainan P O Shipping Co., Ltd. (“P O Shipping”), and removed four common carriers from the controlled carrier list: Ceylon Shipping Corporation (“Ceylon”); Compagnie Nationale Algerienne de Navigation (“CNAN”); Sinotrans Container Lines Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Sinolines) (“Sinotrans”); and The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. (“SCI”).
Pursuant to 46 CFR 501.23, P O Shipping was classified as a controlled carrier on July 23, 2010.
As part of a general review of common carriers subject to regulation by the Commission, Ceylon was determined to be inactive as of March 20, 2012.
CNAN has also been removed from the list, as it no longer operates as an ocean common carrier. All CNAN tariffs in U.S.-foreign trades were cancelled effective February 24, 2011.
Sinotrans is being removed from the list, as it no longer operates as an ocean common carrier in the U.S.-foreign trades, although a related company operates as a non-vessel-operating common carriers (“NVOCC”) in the U.S.-foreign trades.
SCI is also being removed from the list as it no longer does business in the U.S.-foreign trades. All SCI tariffs in U.S.-foreign trades were cancelled effective February 21, 2011.
China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd. and China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Company, Ltd. are now a single organization (RPI No. 019270).
It is requested that any other information regarding possible omissions or inaccuracies in this list be provided to the Commission's Office of General Counsel.
(1) American President Lines, Ltd and APL Co., Pte. (RPI No. 000240)—Republic of Singapore;
(2) COSCO Container Lines Company, Limited (RPI No. 015614)—People's Republic of China;
(3) China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd and China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co., Limited (RPI No. 019270)—People's Republic of China;
(4) Hainan P O Shipping Co., Ltd. (RPI No. 022860)—People's Republic of China.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Randall Marks (202-326-2571), FTC,
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 21, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 20, 2012. Write “Coopharma, File No. 101 0079” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Coopharma, File No. 101 0079” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a proposed consent order with Cooperativa de Farmacias Puertorriqueñas (“Coopharma” or “Respondent”). The agreement settles charges that Coopharma violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by negotiating, entering into, and implementing agreements among its member pharmacy owners to fix the prices on which they contract with third-party payers in Puerto Rico.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed consent order final.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed consent order. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed consent order, or to modify their terms in any way. Further, the proposed consent order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the proposed complaint (other than jurisdictional facts) are true.
Coopharma is a not-for-profit corporation organized and doing business as a cooperative under the laws of Puerto Rico. Coopharma consists of approximately 300 pharmacy owners who own roughly 360 community pharmacies in Puerto Rico. Coopharma members control at least a third of the pharmacies in Puerto Rico and the organization has a particularly strong presence on the western side of the main island.
Coopharma was established with the principal purpose of negotiating on behalf of its members and entering into single-signature “master contracts” with payers that bind all Coopharma pharmacies. The proposed complaint alleges that Coopharma members negotiated collectively through Coopharma to obtain higher reimbursement rates than its members were receiving in their individual contracts with payers, including pharmacy benefits managers and insurers.
The proposed complaint alleges that Coopharma's member pharmacies restrained competition by jointly negotiating and entering into agreements with third-party payers.
Coopharma collectively negotiated reimbursement rates with more than ten payers and has reached agreements on behalf of its members with seven of them. The mere threat of Coopharma members' collective action led two additional payers to pay higher rates. The proposed complaint alleges that Coopharma's actions caused payers to pay higher reimbursement rates to Coopharma members, and that this price increase ultimately may be passed along to consumers in the form of higher premium payments, diminished service, or reduced coverage. As a result, Coopharma's actions caused substantial harm to the consumers of Puerto Rico. Coopharma's conduct was unrelated to any efficiency-enhancing integration among its members.
As a specific example of Coopharma's misconduct, the proposed complaint alleges that CVS-Caremark (“Caremark”), a pharmacy benefits manager operating in Puerto Rico, was forced to rescind a rate cut and to enter into a master contract at a higher rate because of the collective action of Coopharma members.
In 2008, Caremark notified pharmacies throughout the country that it was reducing reimbursement on its Medicare Part D contracts. Coopharma mobilized its members to collectively resist that rate change. Coopharma provided its members with a form letter, which many sent, rejecting the new Medicare Part D contracts and telling Caremark to negotiate rates through Coopharma. Coopharma then informed Caremark that its members would not accept Caremark's reimbursement offer and demanded higher rates. Coopharma also informed certain Caremark clients that Caremark was threatening to terminate pharmacies that did not accept Caremark's rate change. This pressure led Caremark to rescind the Part D rate change for the pharmacies that sent letters rejecting the change.
Coopharma continued to pressure Caremark to enter into a master contract on all lines of business, including Medicare Part D. Coopharma used the same basic tactics to accomplish this goal, by: (1) Demanding that Caremark negotiate exclusively through Coopharma; (2) threatening that its members would terminate their Caremark contracts; and (3) contacting Caremark's clients. Indeed, Coopharma took the matter public by placing a newspaper advertisement stating that negotiations with Caremark had failed and that, as of May 28, 2009, “we will not continue providing services” to Caremark patients.
In August 2009, Caremark agreed to replace Coopharma's members' individual contracts with a master contract with Coopharma. The proposed complaint alleges that Caremark's price concessions cost it approximately $640,000 in 2009 alone.
In addition, the proposed complaint alleges that in at least two instances, the mere threat of collective terminations benefitted individual Coopharma pharmacies at a cost of millions of dollars to third-party payers. Coopharma pharmacies obtained higher reimbursement rates from third-party payers Medco and Medicare Mucho Mas even though negotiations with Coopharma did not result in a master contract. During its negotiations with Medco, Coopharma threatened to pull all Coopharma pharmacies out of Medco's network. In an attempt to prevent such a disruption of its network, Medco raised the reimbursement rates it paid to individual Coopharma pharmacies, a concession that cost Medco and its clients over $2 million between 2007 and 2011. Medicare Mucho Mas, a large Medicare Advantage payer, also feared that Coopharma could cause a similar disruption in its pharmacy network. As a result, Medicare Mucho Mas' pharmacy benefits manager offered a higher reimbursement rate to Coopharma pharmacies.
Finally, the proposed complaint alleges that Coopharma attempted to use collective action to resist a reimbursement rate reduction by health insurer Humana. Coopharma attempted to coerce Humana into maintaining its reimbursement rates by threatening termination of the individual contracts and pressuring it into entering into a master contract. When Humana asserted that Coopharma lacked the legal authority to terminate its members' contracts, Coopharma encouraged its members to terminate their contracts individually.
The proposed complaint alleges that Coopharma's anticompetitive conduct cannot be shielded by the state action doctrine. The state action doctrine provides that states are not subject to federal antitrust liability, and that by extension certain subordinate state entities and private parties exercising state-granted powers may be immunized as well.
Puerto Rico has not clearly articulated a policy to replace competition with the challenged conduct. Law 203 regulates “collective bargaining” between providers of health care services, including pharmacies, on the one hand, and payers, on the other.
The proposed complaint also alleges that Puerto Rico has not actively supervised Coopharma's conduct because no Puerto Rican official has exercised the power to review, approve, or disapprove either the rates in Coopharma's contracts with payers or the coercive collective action it used to obtain them.
The proposed consent order is designed to prevent the continuance and recurrence of the illegal conduct alleged in the proposed complaint, while allowing Coopharma to engage in legitimate joint conduct.
Paragraph II prevents Coopharma from continuing the challenged conduct. Paragraph II.A prohibits Respondent from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among any pharmacies: (1) To negotiate on behalf of any pharmacy with any payer; (2) to refuse to deal or threaten to refuse to deal with any payer; (3) to include any term, condition, or requirement upon which any pharmacy deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, but not limited to, price terms; or (4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer other than through Respondent.
The other parts of Paragraph II reinforce these general prohibitions. Paragraph II.B prohibits Respondent from facilitating exchanges of information between pharmacies concerning whether, and on what terms, to contract with a payer. Paragraph II.C bars attempts to engage in any action prohibited by Paragraph II.A or II.B, and Paragraph II.D proscribes encouraging, suggesting, advising, pressuring, inducing, or attempting to induce any person to engage in any action that would be prohibited by Paragraphs II.A through II.C.
Paragraph III is designed to prevent the challenged conduct from reoccurring. Paragraph III.A requires Coopharma to send a copy of the complaint and consent order to its members, its management and staff, and any payers with whom Coopharma has contracted at any time since January 1, 2008. Paragraph III.B allows for contract termination if a payer voluntarily submits a request to Coopharma to terminate its contract. Pursuant to such a request, Paragraph III.B requires Coopharma to terminate, without penalty, any pre-existing payer contracts. Upon receiving such request, Paragraph III.C requires that Coopharma notify in writing each pharmacy that provides services through that contract to be terminated. Paragraph III.D requires Coopharma, for three years, to distribute a copy of the complaint and consent order to new members, officers, directors, and employees, and to payers who begin contracting with Coopharma and to post them on its Web site.
Paragraphs IV, V, and VI impose various obligations on Coopharma to report or to provide access to information to the Commission to facilitate its compliance with the consent order. Finally, Paragraph VII provides that the proposed consent order will expire 20 years from the date it is issued.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat 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 change order accounting.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (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 October 26, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0026, Change Order Accounting by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “Information Collection 9000-0026, Change Order Accounting” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information 9000-0026, Change Order Accounting”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0026, Change Order Accounting” on your attached document.
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 208-4949, or email at
FAR 43.205 allows a contracting officer, whenever the estimated cost of a change or series of related changes under a contract exceeds $100,000, to assert the right in the clause at FAR 52.243-6, Change Order Accounting, to require the contractor to maintain separate accounts for each change or series of related changes. Each account shall record all incurred segregable, direct costs (less allocable credits) of work, changed and unchanged, allocable to the change. These accounts are to be maintained until the parties agree to an equitable adjustment for the changes or until the matter is conclusively disposed of under the Disputes clause. This requirement is necessary in order to be able to account properly for costs associated with
The estimated annual reporting burden has decreased from what was published in the
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice.
Disparities in prevention, early treatment, and final outcomes exist across the spectrum of cancer types and are often amplified in women's health when we look at breast cancer and gynecologic cancers—primarily cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer. With over 300,000 new cases combined and 68,000 deaths annually, the impact that these cancers have on the United States cannot be overstated. While the incidence and prevalence of these malignancies is as socially and geographically diverse as our nation, they strike minority and underserved women with a disproportionate lethality caused by many factors.
In particular, the prevention strategies for these cancers cross the gambit of social and technical modalities from radiology (e.g., mammography) to advanced immunotherapy and vaccination (e.g., HPV vaccine). The clinical communities that treat and care for these patients is, likewise, among the broadest group of clinical disciplines that can be aggregated—from primary care and the surgical specialties to some of the most cutting-edge radiation oncology and medical oncology groups. But more importantly, any failure of our healthcare system to adequately prevent one of these cancers is most often a failure to address a myriad of social challenges, from education and access to health literacy and community support.
The “Reducing Cancer Among Women of Color Challenge” is a call to developers to create a mobile device-optimized tool that engages and empowers women to improve the prevention and treatment of breast, cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer in underserved and minority communities and interfaces with provider electronic health records (EHRs).
The statutory authority for this challenge competition is Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358).
Effective on August 23, 2012. Challenge submission period ends February 5, 2013, 11:59 p.m. ET.
Adam Wong, 202-720-2866.
This challenge is a multidisciplinary call to innovators and developers to create a mobile device-optimized tool that engages and empowers women to improve the prevention and treatment of breast, cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer in underserved and minority communities and interfaces with provider electronic health records (EHRs). The tool will achieve the following:
• Provide general information regarding preventive and screening services for breast and gynecologic cancers—including, but not limited to, benefits, timing, scheduling, and location.
• Allow for the interface with patient health records or provider-sponsored patient portals to provide specific reminders and trigger electronic health record-based clinical decision support regarding the timing of preventive services.
• Support the storage, viewing, and exchange of complex patient care plans. In particular, the tool will help strengthen communication among provider care teams, possibly spread out across large geographic locations, to afford optimal remote follow-up (e.g., be able to send patient information to electronic health records via
• Support patient engagement and care giver support to help patients and/or their caregivers keep track of complex care plans, such as connections to community health workers, promotores de salud, or patient navigators.
• Be optimized for use on mobile devices.
To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity—
(1) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this section.
(3) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.
(4) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.
(5) Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during assigned duty hours.
(6) Shall not be an employee of Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT.
(7) Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award.
(8) Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge submission.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
Entrants must agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from my participation in this prize contest, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
Entrants must also agree to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to competition activities.
To register for this challenge participants should either:
Awards may be subject to Federal income taxes and HHS will comply with IRS withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
Prize will be paid by contractor.
The review panel will make selections based upon the following criteria:
• Patient engagement
• Quality and accessibility of information
• Targeted and actionable information
• Links to online communities and/or social media
• Innovativeness and usability
• Non-English language availability
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ownership of intellectual property is determined by the following:
• Each entrant retains title and full ownership in and to their submission. Entrants expressly reserve all intellectual property rights not expressly granted under the challenge agreement.
• By participating in the challenge, each entrant hereby irrevocably grants to Sponsor and Administrator a limited, non-exclusive, royalty free, worldwide, license and right to reproduce, publically perform, publically display, and use the Submission to the extent necessary to administer the challenge, and to publically perform and publically display the Submission, including, without limitation, for advertising and promotional purposes relating to the challenge.
15 U.S.C. 3719.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Evaluation of the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) National Prevention Media Initiative—New—National Center for Chronic
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) allotted $650 million to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support evidence-based prevention and wellness strategies. The cornerstone of the initiative is the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) Community Program, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In March 2010, HHS made 44 CPPW awards for community-based obesity and tobacco preventions efforts, followed in September 2010 by additional awards made possible by Affordable Care Act (ACA) funding. Between the two funding sources, there are 50 communities that are part of CPPW: 28 are funded only for obesity-related initiatives; 11 are funded for both obesity and tobacco initiatives; and 11 are funded only for tobacco-related initiatives.
CPPW program efforts are supported by a National Prevention Media Initiative. Although originally planned as a national campaign, CDC determined that the best support for the CPPW communities would be to shift to a localized approach. CDC plans to conduct two cycles of information collection in the 39 target communities that are addressing obesity: the first in Fall 2012 and the second in Winter/Spring 2013. The target is 6,000 completed responses for each cycle of data collection. A separate sample will be drawn for each of the 39 communities. All information will be collected through brief telephone interviews with adults aged 25 years or older. The insights to be gained from this information collection will be valuable to assessing the impact of CPPW-related program activities. The information will specifically be used to assess aided and unaided awareness of CPPW media efforts, beliefs and attitudes about obesity, and behaviors that encourage active eating and healthy living. Results will be used to inform the design and delivery of future media campaigns.
OMB approval is requested for one year. The estimated burden per response is one minute or less for eligibility screening, five minutes for an incomplete telephone interview, and 10 minutes for a complete telephone interview. Participation in the telephone interviews is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,406.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Minimum Data Elements (MDEs) for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) (OMB No. 0920-0571, exp. 11/30/2012)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Many cancer-related deaths in women could be avoided by increased utilization of appropriate screening and early detection tests for breast and cervical cancer. Mammography is extremely valuable as an early detection tool because it can detect breast cancer well before the woman can feel the lump, when the cancer is still in an early and more treatable stage. Similarly, a substantial proportion of cervical cancer-related deaths could be prevented through the detection and treatment of precancerous lesions. The Papanicolaou (Pap) test is the primary method of detecting both precancerous cervical lesions as well as invasive cervical cancer. Mammography and Pap tests are underused by women who have no source or no regular source of health care and women without health insurance.
The CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides screening services to underserved women through cooperative agreements with 50 States, the District of Columbia, 5 U.S. Territories, and 11 American Indian/Alaska Native tribal programs. The program was established in response to the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990. Screening services include clinical breast examinations, mammograms and Pap tests, as well as timely and adequate diagnostic testing for abnormal results, and referrals to treatment for cancers detected. NBCCEDP awardees collect patient-level screening and tracking data to manage the program and clinical services. A de-identified subset of data on patient demographics, screening tests and outcomes are reported by each awardee to CDC twice per year.
CDC is requesting OMB approval to collect MDE information for an additional three years. CDC anticipates a reduction in the overall burden estimate due to a decrease in the number of awardees from 68 to 67.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 536.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
BioSense 2.0 Recruitment of Data Sources (OMB No. 920-0824, exp. 10/31/2012)—Revision—Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (OSELS), Public Health Surveillance and Informatics Program Office (PHSIPO) {Proposed} Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The BioSense Program was created by congressional mandate as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, and it was launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2003. BioSense is a near real-time surveillance system that receives and processes electronic healthcare encounter data from participating public health jurisdictions' non-federal hospital emergency departments and inpatient facilities in addition to all United States Department of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient hospitals and clinics nationwide. The BioSense Program also receives pharmacy data from a private sector health information exchange firm and laboratory data from two national-level private sector clinical laboratories.
The BioSense Program is in the process of transitioning from the original BioSense application to the BioSense 2.0 application that has new governance, a new organizational structure, and a new process for data submission and management. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) has been funded through a cooperative agreement with CDC's Division of Notifiable Disease and Healthcare Information (DNDHI) within the Public Health Surveillance and Informatics Program Office (PHSIPO) of the Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (OSELS) to facilitate the governance of BioSense 2.0, and through a contract with a vendor, ASTHO will offer access and use of BioSense 2.0 on a voluntary basis to state, local, and territorial public health jurisdictions.
All data collected by BioSense 2.0 will reside in a cloud-enabled, Web-based platform that sits in the secure, private Government Cloud and is in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act. The platform will provide users with an exclusive secure space as well as tools for posting, receiving, controlling, analyzing, and sharing their public health surveillance information with other public health jurisdictions, CDC, or other public health partners. The public health jurisdiction will retain ownership of any data it contributes to its exclusive secure space within BioSense 2.0.
CDC has agreements with VA, DoD, two national-level private sector clinical laboratories, and a private sector health information exchange firm to provide healthcare encounter data to CDC's exclusive secure space for the purpose of national public health situation awareness and syndromic surveillance. These organizations automatically chose to share with CDC when they were recruited to submit data to the BioSense 2.0 cloud environment. Because they are not required to choose sharing permissions, collecting already existing healthcare encounter data submitted via electronic record transmission from them entails no burden hours.
Whenever possible, the BioSense Program plans to share aggregate-level pharmacy and laboratory data with public health jurisdictions in the shared space. To participate in the shared space, jurisdiction administrators must simply select from drop-down lists to choose their sharing permissions on the BioSense 2.0 application, and they will have the right at any time to revise the level of sharing permissions regarding the data in their secure space.
In order to continue meeting the congressional mandate in the BioSense 2.0 application BioSense Program maintains 3 different types of information collection: (1) contact information (name, telephone number, email address, and street address) needed for recruitment of participating public health jurisdictions to BioSense 2.0 each year; (2) one-time collection of information (name, email address, title, organizational affiliation, security questions, and password) to provide access to the BioSense 2.0 cloud and its
Recruitment is estimated at 1 hour per respondent. This encompasses the unstructured conversation between the contractor and the respondent. Estimated annualized burden hours for public health jurisdictions, federal government, and private sector are 20, 2, and 3 hours respectively. The public health jurisdiction number is an average divided over three years. We expect it to be highest for the first year then decrease in subsequent years with an estimated total of 60 jurisdictions over 3 years.
Applying for access to the BioSense 2.0 application is estimated at 5/60th of an hour per respondent. This involves a onetime completion of an online questionnaire. Estimated annualized burden hours for public health jurisdictions, federal government, and private sector are 17, 3, and 4 hours respectively.
Data collection (administering sharing permissions) is estimated at 5/60th of an hour per respondent. This activity entails accessing a submenu of the BioSense 2.0 cloud-enabled, Web-based platform and choosing with whom to share data and at what level of aggregation from a series of drop-down lists. Estimated annualized burden hours for public health jurisdictions is 2 hours.
VA, DoD, the two national clinical laboratory corporations, and the private sector health information exchange company (federal government and private sector) automatically chose to share with CDC when they were recruited to submit data to the BioSense 2.0 cloud environment. This entails 0 annualized burden hours per respondent, because the data is shared directly with the CDC BioSense Program.
This request is for a 3-year approval. There are no costs to survey respondents other than their time to participate. The estimated total annualized burden hours for this data collection is 51 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (OMB No. 0920-0822, exp. 09/30/2012)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The health burden of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), Sexual Violence (SV) and stalking are substantial. To address
NISVS uses a dual-frame sampling strategy that includes both landline and cell phone. In 2010, approximately 45.2% of interviews were conducted by landline telephone and 54.8% of interviews were conducted using respondent's cell phone. The overall weighted response rate for 2010 data collection was 27.5%. The weighted cooperation rate was 81.3%. The cooperation rate reflects the proportion who agreed to participate in the interview among those who were contacted and determined eligible. The cooperation rate obtained for 2010 data collection suggests that, once contact was made and eligibility was determined, the majority of respondents chose to participate in the interview.
In the first year of data collection, NISVS data indicated that approximately 6.9 million women and 5.6 million men experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner within the last year. NISVS data also suggested that 18.3% of women and 1.4% of men in the U.S. experienced rape in their lifetime. In addition, 44.5% of women and 22.2% of men experienced sexual violence other than rape during their lifetime. Approximately 5 million women and 1.4 million men in the United States were stalked in the 12 months prior to the survey.
There are also overlaps between stalking and other forms of violence experienced in intimate relationships; approximately 14% of females who were stalked by an intimate partner in their lifetime also experienced physical violence. Approximately 12% of female victims experienced rape, physical violence and stalking by a current or former intimate partner in their lifetime. Furthermore, 76% of female victims of intimate partner homicides were stalked by their partners before they were killed.
The lifetime impact of these types of violence on victims is extensive. Nearly 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior within the relationship (e.g., fear, concern for safety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom, injury, crisis hotline consult, at least one day of work or school missed, and needs for health care, housing, victim advocate, and legal services.)
CDC proposes to continue collecting national data that will provide more detailed and timely information on intimate partner violence, sexual violence and stalking victimization in the U.S. The proposed revision to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) involves no longer collecting data on special sub-populations (i.e. military, American Indian/Alaskan Native, elderly) and thus focusing the scope of data collection to the general population. The overarching purpose of the information collected has not changed.
A total of 73,318 eligible households will be screened annually; out of the households screened, approximately 58,318 will not consent or agree to participate and 15,000 will complete the survey each year. The survey will be conducted among English and/or Spanish speaking male and female adults (18 years and older) living in the United States.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The total estimated annual burden hours are 9,916.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
8 a.m.-5 p.m., October 16, 2012 (Closed).
8 a.m.-5 p.m., October 17, 2012 (Closed).
It is the intent of NIOSH to support broad-based research endeavors in keeping with the Institute's program goals. This will lead to improved understanding and appreciation for the magnitude of the aggregate health burden associated with occupational injuries and illnesses, as well as to support more focused research projects, which will lead to improvements in the delivery of occupational safety and health services, and the prevention of work-related injury and illness. It is anticipated that research funded will promote these program goals.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
On February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which establishes the Emergency Contingency Fund for State TANF Programs (Emergency Fund) as section 403(c) of the Social Security Act (the Act). This legislation provides up to $5 billion to help States, Territories, and Tribes in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and FY 2010 that have an increase in assistance caseloads and basic assistance expenditures, or in expenditures related to short-term benefits or subsidized employment. The Recovery Act made additional changes to TANF extending supplemental grants through FY 2010, expanding flexibility in the use of TANF funds carried over from one fiscal year to the next, and adding a hold-harmless provision to the caseload reduction credit for States and Territories serving more TANF families.
The Emergency Fund is intended to build upon and renew the principles of work and responsibility that underlie successful welfare reform initiatives. The Emergency Fund provides resources to States, Territories, and Tribes to support work and families during this difficult economic period.
On July 20, 2009 we issued a Program Instruction accompanied by the Emergency Fund Request Form (OFA-100), and instructions for jurisdictions to complete the OFA-100 to apply for emergency funds.
Failure to collect this data would compromise ACF's ability to monitor caseload and expenditure data that must increase in order for jurisdictions to receive awards under the Emergency Fund.
Documentation maintenance on financial reporting for the Emergency Fund is governed by 45 CFR 92.20 and 45 CFR 92.42.
ACF is planning to extend the information collection with the adjustment to the Estimated Annual Burden shown in the table below. Based on our projections for a lower Estimated Annual Burden, we have revised the Number of Respondents to 6 from its previous number of 93 and the Number of Responses per Respondent to 3 from its previous number of 5. Because the Number of Respondents and the Number of Responses per Respondents have been revised, the Estimated Total Burden Hours is now 432, down from its previous number of 11,160.
State, Territory, and Tribal agencies administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program that are applying for the Emergency Fund.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments concerning the proposed collection of information by October 26, 2012. Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 26, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Jaewon Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-300), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1-866-405-5367 or 301-796-6707.
On July 9, 2012, the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to fund critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program. GDUFA will also significantly improve global supply chain transparency by requiring owners of facilities producing generic drug products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and certain other sites and organizations that support the manufacture or approval of these products to electronically self-identify with FDA and update that information annually.
Self-identification is required for two purposes. First, it is necessary to determine the universe of facilities required to pay user fees. Once the self-identification process has been completed, FDA will determine the fees and publish the amounts in the
This guidance is intended to assist human generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations by describing how FDA will implement the self-identification requirement contained in GDUFA. As required by GDUFA, in the coming weeks FDA will issue a self-identification requirement notice in the
To facilitate the implementation of the self-identification requirement in GDUFA, FDA is establishing a new system for the electronic self-identification of generic industry facilities, sites, and organizations. Entities that are required to register and list under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, and those entities required to self-identify under GDUFA, will submit information separately to the respective systems. Each system will populate its own database to meet unique requirements and deadlines. The new GDUFA system will use the same platform and technical standards already familiar to manufacturers required to register and list.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on self-identification of generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information associated with this draft guidance, FDA invites comments on the following topics: (1) Whether the proposed information collected is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimated burden of the proposed information collected, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collected on the
Under GDUFA, and as described in the draft guidance, electronic self-identification will be required by all facilities, sites, and organizations involved in the development and manufacturing of generic drugs identified or intended to be identified in an approved or pending FDA generic drug submission. The electronic self-identification requirement applies equally to all domestic and foreign facilities and is independent of the obligation to pay user fees.
Generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations required under GDUFA to self-identify include:
1. Facilities that manufacture, or intend to manufacture, human generic drug APIs or FDFs, or both.
2. Sites and organizations that package the FDF of a human generic drug into the primary container/closure system and label the primary container/closure system.
3. Sites that are identified in a generic drug submission and pursuant to a contract with the applicant remove the drug from a primary container/closure system and subdivide the contents into a different primary container/closure system.
4. Bioequivalence (BE)/bioavailability (BA) sites that are identified in a generic drug submission and conduct clinical BE/BA testing, bioanalytical testing of samples collected from clinical BE/BA testing, and/or in vitro BE testing.
5. Sites that are identified in a generic drug submission and perform testing of one or more attributes or characteristics of the FDF or the API pursuant to a contract with the applicant to satisfy a current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) testing requirement (excludes sites that are testing for research purposes only).
All of the facilities, sites, and organizations listed above are currently required to register and list except for #4.
FDA is establishing a new system for self-identification of generic industry facilities, sites, and organizations. Entities that are required to register and list, and those that are required to self-identify, will submit information to both systems separately. Each system will populate its own database to meet unique requirements and deadlines. Although separate, both systems are built on a common process already familiar to manufacturers required to register and list. This will minimize the cost and effort associated with compliance.
FDA will use the same electronic exchange standards and formats for self-identification that are used in the Drug Registration and Listing System (eDRLS) including XML file formats, which conform to message standards for Structured Product Labeling (SPL). Facilities, sites, and organizations will be able to generate electronic SPL files in the free eSubmitter tool available on FDA's Web site, or other commercially available tools, and submit the files through FDA's Electronic Submissions Gateway. Facilities, sites, and organizations will be required to provide Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) numbers and Facility Establishment Identifiers (FEI) to enable quick and accurate identification of registrants as well as facilities, sites, and organizations. They will also be required to submit information about the registrant, facility, and SPL file. Requested information will include:
FDA estimates that approximately 2,650 facilities, sites, and organizations (“number of respondents” in Table 1) will submit the self-identification information set forth above and described in the draft guidance, resulting in approximately 3,000 annual submissions (“total annual responses” in Table 1). Although there will be one self-identification submission annually by each facility, site, and organization, we rounded the estimate upwards to approximately 3,000 to account for any revisions to the submissions, if needed. These estimates are based on FDA's database of manufacturers in eDRLS and are consistent with conversations between the Agency and representatives of regulated industry during the generic drug user fee negotiations. We also estimate that preparing and submitting this information will take approximately 2.5 hours for each facility (“hours per response” in Table 1). We base this estimate on the hour burden estimate for submitting drug registration information electronically under eDRLS, as approved by OMB under control number 0910-0045. Most facilities, sites, and organizations are familiar with the eDRLS process and already have the self-identification information available. Entities that are required to register would submit this information separately to the eDRLS system, as approved by OMB under control number 0910-0045.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers.” The Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to support critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program. GDUFA also requires that generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations located around the world provide identification information annually to FDA. This guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions from the generic drug industry and other interested parties involved in the development and/or testing of generic drug products regarding the requirements and commitments of GDUFA.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 26, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Jaewon Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 866-405-5367 or 301-796-6707.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers.” GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President on July 9, 2012. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to support critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program.
GDUFA establishes fees for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), prior approval supplements (PASs) to ANDAs, and drug master files (DMFs), annual facility fees, and a one-time fee for original ANDAs pending with FDA on October 1, 2012 (backlog fees). Fees will be incurred for ANDAs and PASs submitted on or after October 1, 2012. An application fee will also be incurred the first time a DMF is referenced in an ANDA or PAS submitted on or after October 1, 2012. FDA plans to publish the fee amounts for ANDAs, PASs, DMFs, and the backlog fee in the
The amount of the annual user fees for generic drug facilities will be determined after GDUFA program launch. Under GDUFA, facilities, sites, and organizations are first required to self-identify. Fees will be determined after the self-identification process has been completed, providing FDA information about the number of facilities that will be required to pay user fees. These include facilities manufacturing, or intending to manufacture, active pharmaceutical ingredients of human generic drugs and/or finished dosage form human generic drugs.
This draft guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions from generic drug industry participants and other interested parties involved in the development and/or testing of generic drug products regarding FDA's plans for implementing GDUFA. This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on generic drug user fee amendments of 2012. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a
The public meeting will be held on September 21, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, Rm. 2047, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Mary Gross, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6178, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3519, email:
We will try to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation. Those making oral presentations at the meeting should submit to the docket a brief summary of the presentation (or questions), including the discussion topic(s) that will be addressed and the approximate time requested for your presentation. The time allotted for presentations will depend on the number of persons who wish to speak. If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Mary Gross or Randi Clark (see
For those unable to attend in person, FDA will provide a Webcast and a telephone audio link to the meeting. To join the meeting via the Webcast, please go to
On July 9, 2012, GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President. Designed to speed access to safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry, GDUFA requires that generic drug manufacturers pay user fees to finance critical and measurable generic drug program enhancements. GDUFA also requires that generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations located around the world provide identification information annually to FDA. Additional information concerning GDUFA, including the text of the law and the letter in which FDA describes commitments it is making for improvements in the process, may be found on the FDA Web site at
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent communications that provide greater detail on FDA's GDUFA implementation plans. These communications are published elsewhere in this issue of the
• Draft Guidance for Industry
• Draft Guidance for Industry
•
The meeting will provide an overview of these communications and an opportunity for public input.
In general, the meeting format will include presentations by FDA, a panel discussion with stakeholder groups, individual public testimony, and an opportunity for questions and answers from the audience. The amount of time available for public testimony will be determined by the number of people who register to provide testimony. An agenda and other background for the public meeting will be posted at
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing this notice to provide applicants who are no longer seeking approval of their pending original abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) with an opportunity to withdraw them as soon as possible to avoid paying a fee. The fee in question is a one-time backlog fee that was established through enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA). It will apply to any original ANDA that is pending (neither withdrawn nor tentatively approved) at FDA on October 1, 2012. This notice is intended to allow applicants to decide which ANDAs they do not wish to pursue and by timely notice of withdrawal avoid paying the new backlog fee on such applications.
Under GDUFA, to avoid incurring the backlog fee, an ANDA applicant covered by this notice must submit written notification to FDA so that it is received by September 28, 2012. However, to expedite this process, applicants are encouraged to submit their written notification by September 15, 2012.
Applicants should submit written notification of the request for withdrawal by standard application submission methods. If an application was submitted by the FDA electronic gateway, a request for withdrawal should be submitted to the application by the gateway. In addition, a copy of the electronic notification of withdrawal should be emailed to
Thomas Hinchliffe, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-617), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9310,
On July 9, 2012, GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President. Designed to speed delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry, GDUFA requires that generic drug manufacturers pay user fees to finance critical and measurable program enhancements. The new law includes a provision to assess user fees for any original ANDA that is pending on October 1, 2012, that has not been tentatively approved. Collection of fees for applications in the backlog will provide the Agency with necessary funding to reduce the backlog and prepare to meet the ANDA review performance goals established by GDUFA. Specifically, in the Commitment Letter that accompanies the law, FDA committed to review and act on 90 percent of all ANDAs pending on October 1, 2012, by the end of fiscal year 2017.
FDA will set the backlog fee rates for FY 2013 to generate a total of $50,000,000. Therefore, to determine the fee for a pending original ANDA, we will divide $50,000,000 by the number of original ANDAs that are pending on October 1, 2012, and have not been tentatively approved as of that date.
We have estimated that absent withdrawals there could be 3,000 pending original ANDAs on October 1, 2012. Some currently pending original ANDAs are old and incomplete, and FDA anticipates that applicants will withdraw many of them before October 1, 2012, to avoid incurring the backlog fee. If 2,000 original ANDAs were to remain, the backlog fee per ANDA would be $25,000. However, this is only an estimate; the final fee, which will be published along with payment instructions in a notice in the
Payment of backlog fees will be due no later than 30 calendar days after publication in the
The fee is an obligation to the U.S. Government, and failure to pay the fee may result in collection activities by the Government under applicable laws.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) will meet on September 11-12, 2012 in the Washington, DC metropolitan area to discuss various issues relating to national maritime security. This meeting will be open to the public.
The Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and Wednesday, September 12, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is finished.
All written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 7, 2012.
The Committee will meet at the American Bureau of Shipping, 1400 Key Blvd., Suite 800, Arlington, Virginia 22209. Seating is very limited. Members of the public wishing to attend the open sessions should register with Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Official (ADFO) of NMSAC, telephone 202-372-1108 or
To participate via teleconference, dial (866) 810-4853; the pass code to join is 9760138#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online Web format, please log onto
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed below in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Identify your comments by docket number [USCG-2012-0797], and submit them no later than September 7, 2012 by using one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public comment period will be held on September 11, 2012, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and September 12, 2012 from 11:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period will end following the last call for comments. Contact the person listed below in the
Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC, 2100 2nd Street SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone 202-372-1108 or email
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The agenda for the Committee meeting is as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(1)
(2)
(3)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Application and Approval to Manipulate, Examine, Sample, or Transfer Goods. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before September 26, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one 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/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components 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 collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: User Fees. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before September 26, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.104-13). Your comments should address one 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/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components 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 collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.
In addition, CBP requires express consignment courier facilities (ECCFs) to file lists of couriers using the facility in accordance with 19 CFR 128.11. ECCFs are also required to file a quarterly report in accordance with 19 CFR 24.23(b)(4).
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. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before September 26, 2012.
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 email
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 street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii), scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families and species, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the golden parakeet (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to export one female captive-bred Amur leopard (
The applicant requests a permit to export and re-import captive-bred and wild specimens including live biological samples, salvaged material, and viable eggs of Masked bobwhite quail (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the brush-tailed rat-kangaroo or Woylie (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the family Lemuridae, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to export fin clip samples to a laboratory in Canada for management plans of the species smalltooth sawfish (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families and species, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to take biological samples, from 70 green sea turtles (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona.
The plats of survey of the described lands were officially filed in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona, on dates indicated.
The plat representing a dependent resurvey of the west boundary, Township 23 North, Range 15 East, the survey of the west and north boundaries, a Sectional Guide Meridian and Sectional Correction Line, the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 23 North, Range 14 East, accepted August 15, 2012, and officially filed August 17, 2012, for Group 1093, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Regional Office.
The plat representing the survey of the south and east boundaries, and the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 40 North, Range 24 East, accepted August 13, 2012, and officially filed August 15, 2012, for Group 1096, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Regional Office.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004-4427. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Land Office at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest against a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest (at the above address) with the Oregon/Washington State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6124, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) western Oregon Resource Advisory Committees, will meet as indicated below.
The meetings will be held at the following addresses in western Oregon. The point of contact for each meeting is also listed:
Jeff Clark, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, Oregon State Office, PO Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208, (503) 808-6028;
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act was extended to provide stability for local counties by compensating them, in part, for the decrease in funds formerly derived from the harvest of timber on Federal lands. Pursuant to the Act, the five Committees serve western Oregon BLM districts that contain Oregon and California grant lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. Committees consist of 15 local citizens representing a wide array of interests. The RACs provide a mechanism for local community collaboration with Federal land managers as they select projects to be conducted on Federal lands or that will benefit resources on Federal lands using funds under Title II of the Act.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above. The Resource Advisory Committees will be based on the following BLM District boundaries:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Title VI, Section 205 of Pub. L. 110-343.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be September 18-19, 2012.
The September 18 meeting will begin at 10 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period and will adjourn at 5:15 p.m.
The September 19 meeting will begin at 8 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period beginning at 10 a.m. and will adjourn at 12 p.m.
The meetings will be in the Lewistown Field Office Conference Room at 920 NE Main, Lewistown, Montana.
Gary L. “Stan” Benes, Central Montana District Manager, Lewistown Field Office, 920 NE Main, Lewistown, MT 59457, (406) 538-1900,
This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Montana. During these meetings the council will participate in/discuss/act upon these topics/activities: a roundtable discussion among council members and the BLM; the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge conservation plan; a Greater Sage-Grouse update; Judith River and Arrow Creek reserved water rights update; district managers' updates; fire and mitigation education program updates; Draft HiLine Resource Management Plan and Ft. Belknap Water compact update; a riparian assessment report; and U.S. Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative update. All RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.
Following receipt of a request on July 30, 2012 from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted investigation No. 332-533,
October 4, 2012: Deadline for filing requests to appear at the public hearing.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Jennifer Powell (202-205-3450 or
As requested by the USTR, the Commission will provide a first report, on environmental and related services, that, to the extent practicable:
• Estimates the size of the U.S. and global markets for certain environmental and related services—including water and wastewater services, solid and hazardous waste services, and remediation services—identifies top suppliers and key country markets for such services, investigates factors affecting supply and demand in these market segments, and highlights market developments that have occurred within the last five years;
• Estimates the value of trade and investment in the subject environmental services segments, identifies key export and import markets for such services, and discusses recent trends in environmental services trade and investment; and
• Identifies barriers to trade and investment in the subject environmental services segments, discusses recent efforts to liberalize trade and investment in environmental services, and investigates the potential impact of further liberalization in environmental services.
As requested, the Commission expects to deliver this first report to the USTR no later than March 29, 2013.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform with the requirements in section 201.6 of the
In the request letter, the USTR stated that his office intends to make the Commission's report available to the public in its entirety, and asked that the Commission not include any confidential business information or national security classified information in the report that the Commission sends to the USTR. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing this report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on September 1, 2011 (76 FR 54490) and determined on December 5, 2011 that it would conduct a full review (76 FR 79214, December 21, 2011). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on August 22, 2012. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4345 (August 2012), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting summary determination of no importation and terminating the investigation. On review, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ's grant of summary determination of no importation on the merits and terminates the investigation.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 4, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Boart Longyear Company and Longyear TM, Inc. both of South Jordan, Utah. 76 FR 32997 (June 4, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
On June 11, 2012, Respondents filed a motion for summary determination of no importation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B). On June 21, 2012, Complainants filed an opposition to the motion. On July 10, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting Respondents' motion for summary determination of no importation and terminating the investigation.
On July 24, 2012, Complainants filed a petition for review of the ID. Respondents filed an opposition to Complainants' petition on July 31, 2012.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's ID, the petition for review, and the response thereto, the Commission has determined to review the ID. On review, the Commission affirms the ALJ's grant of summary determination of no importation but does not adopt any statements in the ID to the effect that the determination is on jurisdictional grounds. Specifically, the Commission finds that the ALJ's determination appropriately considers the merits, and the Commission affirms the ALJ's determination on the merits. Complainants may re-file their complaint if they can make an allegation of importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of accused products after issuance of the asserted patents.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on August 22, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree in
The Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, relating to the Defendant's horse racing facility in East Boston and Revere, Massachusetts. The Defendant will pay $1.25 million as a civil penalty and will continue to perform work at the facility, estimated to cost approximately $3.29 million, in order to comply with the anticipated terms of a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Finally, the Defendant will be responsible for the performance of three Supplemental Environmental Projects with an estimated value of $742,000 that will provide water quality monitoring and protection efforts for the nearby watershed.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board to review and vote on recommendations for the 2011-2012 Medal of Valor nominations, consider issues relevant to the nomination review process, discuss pending ceremonies and upcoming activities and other relevant Board issues related thereto. The meeting date and time is listed below.
September 20, 2012, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET.
This meeting will take place at 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 514-1369, toll free (866) 859-2687, or by email at
The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board carries out those advisory functions specified in 42 U.S.C. 15202. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15201, the President of the United States is authorized to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer.
The primary purpose of this meeting is to review and vote on recommendations for the 2011-2012 Medal of Valor nominations.
This meeting is open to the public at the offices of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. For security purposes,
Access to the meeting will not be allowed without prior registration. Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact Mr. Joy at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Please submit any comments or written statements for consideration by the Review Board in writing at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting date.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Ground Control Plans for Surface Coal Mines and Surface Work Areas of Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before September 26, 2012.
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 DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Each operator of a surface coal mine is required by Regulations 30 CFR 77.1000 to establish and follow a ground control plan that is consistent with prudent engineering design and that will ensure safe working conditions. The mine operator is required by § 77.1000-1 to file the ground control plan under § 77.1000 for highwalls, pits, and spoil banks with the appropriate MSHA District Manager. The mining methods employed by the operator are selected to ensure highwall, pit, and spoil bank stability. In the event of a highwall failure or material dislodgment, there may be very little time to escape possible injury; therefore, preventive measures must be taken. Each plan is based on the type of strata expected to be encountered, the height and angle of highwalls and spoil banks, and the equipment to be used at the mine. The plan is used to show how the mine operator will maintain safe conditions around the highwalls, pits, and spoil banks. Each plan is reviewed by the MSHA to ensure highwalls, pits, and spoil banks are maintained in a safe condition through the use of sound engineering design.
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 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.
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA) in the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) of the U.S. Department of Labor has determined that an extension of time is required for its review of Submission #2011-03 concerning the Dominican Republic (the Submission) filed under Chapter Sixteen (the Labor Chapter) of the Dominican Republic—Central America—United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).
On December 22, 2011, OTLA received the Submission from Father Christopher Hartley. It alleges action or inaction by the Government of the Dominican Republic that, if substantiated, could be inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's commitments under the Labor Chapter.
OTLA accepted the Submission for review on February 22, 2012 (77 FR 15397 (2012)), in accordance with its published Procedural Guidelines (71 FR 76694 (2006)). Acceptance triggers a 180-day fact-finding and review period that results in the issuance of a public report of any findings and recommendations. The objective of fact-finding and review is to gather information so that OTLA can better understand the case and publicly report on the U.S. Government's views regarding whether the Government of the Dominican Republic's action or inaction was consistent with the obligations set forth in the Labor Chapter. The public report will include a summary of the review process, as well as any findings and recommendations.
As part of its ongoing review, OTLA sent a delegation to the Dominican Republic from April 22-30, 2012, to gather information on issues raised by the Submission. The OTLA delegation met with representatives from the Government of the Dominican Republic, employers, workers, and other groups with information relevant to the Submission. ILAB conducted a follow-up visit to the Dominican Republic from July 22-25, 2012, during which its delegation met again with the above representatives and with additional stakeholders in order to collect additional information.
According to the Procedural Guidelines, if OTLA determines circumstances require an extension of time, it can delay the report's publication (Procedural Guidelines, Sec. H.7). OTLA has determined that the circumstances require an extension of time, pursuant to section H.7 of the Procedural Guidelines. The extension of time is necessary to permit adequate consideration of the following information that OTLA recently received:
• Public comments in response to the
• Information the ILAB delegation collected during its July 22-25, 2012 visit to the Dominican Republic.
OTLA will continue to give this matter the highest priority in order to complete the review as expeditiously as possible.
Gregory Schoepfle, Director, OTLA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-5303, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-4900 (this is not a toll-free number).
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the existing collection: Health Insurance Claim Form (OWCP-1500). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 26, 2012.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0701, fax (202) 693-2447, Email
I.
II.
• 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 submissions of responses.
III.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Representative Fee Request (CA-143/CA-155). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 26, 2012.
Ms Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0701, fax (202) 693-2447, Email
I.
II.
• 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 submissions of responses.
III.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the existing collection: Uniform Billing Form (OWCP-04). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 26, 2012.
Ms Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0701, fax (202) 693-2447, Email
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is the agency responsible for administration of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq., and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq. All three of these statutes require that OWCP pay for medical treatment of beneficiaries; this medical treatment can include inpatient/outpatient hospital services, as well as services provided by nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities and home health aides in the home. In order to determine whether billed amounts are appropriate, OWCP needs to identify the patient, the specific services that were rendered and their relationship to the work-related injury or illness. The regulations implementing these statutes require the use of Form OWCP-04 or UB-04 for the submission of medical bills from institutional providers (20 CFR 10.801, 30.701, 725.405, 725.406, 725.701 and 725.704). The Uniform Billing form, known as the paper UB-04, has been approved by the American Hospital Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), by various other government health care providers, and the private sector to request payment to institutional providers of medical services. The paper UB-04 has been designed by the National Uniform Billing Committee and is neither a government-printed form nor distributed by OWCP. However, this collection includes the paper UB-04 as a collection instrument, with detailed instructions prepared by OWCP to ensure that it obtains only the information needed to consider requests for payment from institutional providers using this billing form. This information collection is currently approved for use through November 30, 2012.
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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 submissions of responses.
The Department of Labor seeks the approval of the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to provide payment for covered medical services to beneficiaries who are covered under FECA, BLBA and EEOICPA.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are announcing receipt of two notices of intent to audit the 2009, 2010, and 2011 statements of account submitted by DKCM, Inc. and Greater Media, Inc., concerning the royalty payments made by each pursuant to two statutory licenses.
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at
The Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, grants to copyright owners of sound recordings the exclusive right to perform publicly sound recordings by means of certain digital audio transmissions, subject to certain limitations. Specifically, this right is limited to two statutory licenses. The
Licensees may operate under these licenses provided they pay the royalty fees and comply with the terms set by the Copyright Royalty Judges. The rates and terms for the section 112 and 114 licenses are set forth in 37 CFR part 380. As part of the terms set for these licenses, the Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc., as the organization charged with collecting the royalty payments and statements of account submitted by eligible nonsubscription services such as, among others, Commercial Webcasters and Broadcasters, and distributing the royalties to the copyright owners and performers entitled to receive such royalties under the section 112 and 114 licenses. 37 CFR 380.4(b)(1) (Commercial Webcasters), 380.13(b)(1) (Broadcasters). As the designated Collective, SoundExchange may conduct a single audit of a licensee for any calendar year for the purpose of verifying their royalty payments. SoundExchange must first file with the Judges a notice of intent to audit a licensee and serve the notice on the licensee to be audited. 37 CFR 380.6(c), 380.15(c).
On August 8, 2012, SoundExchange filed with the Judges separate notices of intent to audit DKCM, Inc., a Commercial Webcaster, and Greater Media, Inc., a Broadcaster, for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Sections 380.6(c) and 380.15(c) require the Judges to publish a notice in the
In accordance with §§ 380.6(c) and 380.15(c), the Copyright Royalty Judges are publishing today's notice to fulfill this requirement with respect to SoundExchange's respective notices of intent to audit DKCM, Inc., and Greater Media, Inc., each filed August 8, 2012.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of availability of the OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for FY 2013.
Public Law 112-25, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, “the Act”) amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) by reinstating the discretionary spending limits that had expired after 2002. Section 254 of the BBEDCA requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue a Sequestration Update Report on August 20th of each year on the overall status of discretionary legislation. This report provides OMB's current estimates of the spending limits set in the Act and OMB's scoring of pending appropriations legislation against those limits as of August 2012. As required, these estimates rely on the same economic and technical assumptions used in the President's 2013 Budget, which the Administration transmitted to the Congress on February 13, 2012.
The OMB Sequestration Reports to the President and Congress is available on-line on the OMB home page at:
Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address:
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received 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 permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by September 26, 2012. This application 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.
Polly A. Penhale at the above address or (703) 292-7420.
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 applications received are as follows:
Philip R. Kyle, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, NM
Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant plans to enter ASPA 130-Tramway Ridge, Mt. Erebus to measure soil temperatures and sample gases emitted in weak gas vents for comparison with gases emitted elsewhere on Erebus. The composition of the gas emissions is important as it is likely the source of nutrients/energy that supports extremophiles in the soil.
ASPA 130-Tramway Ridge, Mt. Erebus, Ross Island.
December 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014.
This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gives notice that it will convene an evidentiary hearing with regard to a challenge by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Ecology Party of Florida (Intervenors)
The evidentiary hearing will be held under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2231, 2239, and 2241. It will be conducted pursuant to the NRC hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, 10 CFR 2.1200-2.1213. During the course of this adjudicatory proceeding the Board may also hear oral arguments as provided in 10 CFR 2.331 and may hold various prehearing conferences pursuant to 10 CFR 2.329. These may be held via teleconference, video-conference, and/or in person. Except where certain legally privileged documents or testimony are being heard, all of the proceedings will be open to the public.
Contention 4A, as it will be litigated during the October 31, 2012 evidentiary hearing,
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) fails to comply with 10 CFR Part 51 and the National Environmental Policy Act because it fails to specifically and adequately address, and inappropriately characterizes as SMALL, certain direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, onsite and offsite, of constructing and operating the proposed LNP facility:
A. Impacts to wetlands, floodplains, special aquatic sites, and other waters, associated with dewatering, specifically:
1. Impacts resulting from active and passive dewatering;
2. Impacts resulting from the connection of the site to the underlying Floridan aquifer system;
3. Impacts on Outstanding Florida Waters such as the Withlacoochee and Waccasassa Rivers;
4. Impacts on water quality and the aquatic environment due to alterations and increases in nutrient concentrations caused by the removal of water; and
5. Impacts on water quality and the aquatic environment due to increased nutrients resulting from destructive wildfires resulting from dewatering.
B. Impacts to wetlands, floodplains, special aquatic sites, and other waters, associated with salt drift and salt deposition resulting from cooling towers (that use salt water) being situated in an inland, freshwater wetland area of the LNP site.
C. As a result of the omissions and inadequacies described above, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement also failed to adequately identify, and inappropriately characterizes as SMALL, the proposed project's zone of:
1. Environmental impacts;
2. Impact on Federally listed species;
3. Irreversible and irretrievable environmental impacts; and
4. Appropriate mitigation measures.
The Board will convene the evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, October 31, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. e.d.t., in the Levy County Courthouse. The courthouse is located at 355 South Court Street, Bronson, Florida. If the evidentiary hearing lasts longer than one day, we will adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m. on October 31 and will reconvene and continue at 9:00 a.m. e.d.t. on Thursday, November 1, 2012. We anticipate that the evidentiary hearing will not take more than two days.
Members of the public and media are welcome to attend and observe the evidentiary hearing. Actual participation in the hearing will be limited to the parties and their lawyers and witnesses.
The purpose of limited appearance statements is to allow members of the public who are not parties to the adjudication to provide the Board with statements setting forth their positions or concerns on matters relating to the admitted contentions. This Board already conducted two oral limited appearance statement sessions regarding Contention 4A in Crystal River, Florida, on Thursday, January 12, 2012.
In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written limited appearance statement should be sent to the Chairman of this Licensing Board as follows:
Documents relating to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board adjudicatory proceeding such as the parties' statements of position, pre-filed testimony, pre-filed evidentiary exhibits, transcripts of prior conferences and oral arguments, and copies or prior orders and rulings issued by this Board in this case, are available for public inspection at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's “Electronic Hearing Docket” (EHD). The EHD is located at
In addition, the broader category of all of NRC's public documents related to PEF's application and the responses, questions, and other documents generated by the NRC Staff (such as PEF's Combined License Application and the NRC's Environmental Impact Statements) may be accessed via the publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS can be accessed via the NRC Web site at
Persons who have difficulty in conducting useful searches in ADAMS or who otherwise encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail at
In addition, hard copies of Board orders, notices and/or memoranda are also available at the NRC PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Finally, the public is advised that the Secretary of the Commission will give notice of filings and other events in this proceeding to any member of the public who requests it.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
1.
Under Section 9 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), and Section 6 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), railroad employers are required to submit reports of employee service and compensation to the RRB as needed for administering the RRA and RUIA. To pay benefits due on a deceased employee's earnings records or determine entitlement to, and amount of annuity applied for, it is necessary at times to obtain from railroad employers current (lag) service and compensation not yet reported to the RRB through the annual reporting process. The reporting requirements are specified in 20 CFR 209.6 and 209.7. The RRB currently utilizes Form G-88A.1, Notice of Retirement and Verification of Date Last Worked, Form G-88A.2, Notice of Retirement and Request for Service Needed for Eligibility, and Form AA-12, Notice of Death and Compensation, to obtain the required lag service and related information from railroad employers. Form G-88A.1 is a computer-generated listing sent by the RRB to railroad employers and used for the specific purpose of verifying information previously provided to the RRB regarding the date last worked by an employee. If the information is correct, the employer need not reply. If the information is incorrect, the employer is asked to provide corrected information. Form G-88A.2 is used by the RRB to secure lag service and compensation information when it is needed to determine benefit eligibility. Form AA-12 obtains a report of lag service and compensation from the last railroad employer of a deceased employee. This report covers the lag period between the date of the latest record of employment processed by the RRB and the date an employee last worked, the date of death or the date the employee may have been entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. The information is used by the RRB to determine benefits due on the deceased employee's earnings record. The RRB proposes no changes to Forms AA-12 or G-88A.2; minor editorial changes to the paper version of Form G-88A.1 and the implementation of an Internet equivalent version of Forms G-88A.1 and G-88A.2 that can be submitted through the RRB's Employer Reporting System (ERS).
In addition, 20 CFR 209.12(b) requires all railroad employers to furnish the RRB with the home addresses of all employees hired within the last year (new-hires). Form BA-6a,
Completion of the forms is mandatory. Multiple responses may be filed by respondent.
2.
Under Section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), benefits that may be due on the death of a railroad employee or a survivor annuitant include (1) a lump-sum death benefit (2) a residual lump-sum payment (3) accrued annuities due but unpaid at death, and (4) monthly survivor insurance payments. The requirements for determining the entitlement of possible beneficiaries to these benefits are prescribed in 20 CFR part 234.
When the RRB receives notification of the death of a railroad employee or survivor annuitant, an RRB field office utilizes Form RL-94-F, Survivor Questionnaire, to secure additional information from surviving relatives needed to determine if any further benefits are payable under the RRA. Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent. The RRB proposes collecting identifying information when a trustee pays the burial expenses; minor non-burden impacting clarification; and editorial changes to Form RL-94-F.
3.
Section 3(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), as amended by Public Law 98-76, provides that the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), under certain circumstances, may deem additional months of service in cases where an employee does not actually work in every month of the year, provided the employee satisfies certain eligibility requirements, including the existence of an employment relation between the employee and his or her employer. The procedures pertaining to the deeming of additional months of service are found in the RRB's regulations at 20 CFR part 210, Creditable Railroad Service.
The RRB utilizes Form GL-99, Employer's Deemed Service Months Questionnaire, to obtain service and compensation information from railroad employers to determine if an employee can be credited with additional deemed months of railroad service.
The RRB is proposing revisions to Form GL-99 to obtain only a “Yes” or “No” response regarding whether an employee was in an employment relationship with an employer during any months indicated on the GL-99 as not worked. Other minor non-burden impacting editorial changes are also proposed. Completion is mandatory. One response is required for each RRB inquiry.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule 1014 (Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders) to indicate that compliance with specified market making obligations pursuant to the rule will be determined on a monthly basis.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1014 to indicate that compliance with specified market making obligations pursuant to the rule will be determined on a monthly basis.
Market makers on the Exchange include Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”),
Rule 1014 also discusses other market makers including Directed SQTs and Directed RSQTs, which receive Directed Orders as defined in Rule 1080(l)(i)(A). Specialists may likewise receive Directed Orders.
Currently, Rule 1014 sets forth the market making obligations of all market makers. Sub-section (b)(ii)(D)(1) of Rule 1014 states that SQTs and RSQTs (when they do not function as Remote Specialists) shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in not less than 60% of the series in which such SQTs or RSQTs are assigned; provided that, on any given day, a DRSQT or DSQT shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in the lesser of 99% of the series listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series listed on the Exchange minus one call-put pair. The sub-section states also that whenever a DSQT or DRSQT enters a quotation in an option in which such DSQT or DRSQT is assigned, such DSQT or DRSQT must maintain until the close of that trading day quotations for the lesser of 99% of the series of the option listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series of the
Rule 1014 does not currently indicate the timeframe within which the Exchange can review whether a member has met the quoting obligations in sub-section (b)(ii)(D).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state in sub-sections (b)(ii)(D)(1) and (b)(ii)(D)(2) of Rule 1014 that compliance with the quoting obligation will be determined on a monthly basis. The proposed language is exactly the same language used by another options exchange, NYSE Arca.
The proposal ensures that compliance standards for two-sided quoting will be the same on the Exchange as on other options exchanges. The proposal does not, however, change the quoting requirements set forth in Rule 1014 or the Exchange's regulatory oversight (monitoring) of the requirements. To the contrary, subsequent to the approval of this proposal, the quoting requirements will remain and the Exchange will continue to monitor (surveil) market maker quoting behavior on a daily basis with an eye toward whether market makers meet Rule 1014 quoting requirements.
While quoting will continue to be monitored daily, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate, fair and generally more efficient for the Exchange and market participants to evaluate compliance on a monthly rather than daily basis. Thus, a market maker that may have quoted less on a single day of a month may meet his overall Rule 1014 quoting obligations, and still be compliant with the Rule, by posting substantially more two-sided quotes on the other days of the month. The Exchange believes that the proposal will not diminish, and in fact may increase, market making activity on the Exchange, by establishing a quoting compliance standard that is reasonable and is already in use on other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposal ensures that compliance standards for two-sided quoting will be the same on the Exchange as on other options exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposal will not diminish, and in fact may increase, market making activity on the Exchange, by establishing a quoting compliance standard that is reasonable and is already in use on other options exchanges, while continuing to monitor quoting activity on a daily basis.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal is pro-competitive. The proposal would enable the Exchange to provide members with rules that are similar to those of other options exchanges, and to add clarity to its rules. This should promote trading and hedging activity on the Exchange to the benefit of the Exchange, its members, and market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-108 and should be submitted on or before September 17, 2012.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options LLC (“NYSE Amex Options”) Limited Liability Company Agreement (“LLC Agreement”) to eliminate certain restrictions relating to the qualification of Founding Firm Advisory Committee Members. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the LLC Agreement to eliminate certain restrictions relating to the qualification of Founding Firm
Currently, Section 8.3(d) of the LLC Agreement provides that each Founding Firm, prior to designating an individual to the Advisory Committee, shall certify in writing to the Board that such individual is not then a director (or an alternate director or observer to the board or any committee of the board), officer, or employee of a Specified Entity;
The Excange proposes to amend the LLC Agreement to remove the restrictions that an individual who serves on the Advisory Committee cannot then be or later become a director (or alternate director or observer to the board or any committee of the board) of a Specified Entity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would expand the pool of candidates eligible for membership on the Advisory Committee and thereby increase the breadth of industry knowledge that will be available to it without creating any conflicts of interest that cannot be appropriately managed, which benefits the public interest. The increased representation of different constituencies on the Advisory Committee also would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, contribute to the identification of opportunities for innovation, and enhance competition.
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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to make it possible for the staff of Phlx to require an immediate answer to their inquiries to floor brokers for client information about the agency orders those floor brokers handle. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Phlx proposes to have the ability to require an immediate answer to its inquiries to floor brokers related to the identity of the clients behind agency orders that the floor brokers handle. The current text of the rule to be amended provides each member, member organization or associated person a timeframe of two business days to respond to the Exchange's inquiries in order for the response to be deemed as a prompt compliance. However, in the case where a floor broker receives an agency order from his client, the Exchange's regulatory staff must be able to know immediately the identity of that client when the order is subject of a complaint or otherwise requires regulatory review. Such authority is necessary in order for the Phlx regulatory staff to be able to take an action regarding concerns that stem from their observation of order handling, a complaint by a market participant, or a complaint by regulatory staff from another self-regulatory organization that is party to an information sharing agreement with Phlx. Accordingly, Phlx is proposing that the fines provided for in Option Floor Procedure F-8 will be assessed if a floor broker fails to respond immediately to a request for information about its client.
Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and one extension of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than October 26, 2012. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instrument by writing to the above email address.
State Supplementation Provisions: Agreement; Payments—20 CFR 416.2095-416.2098, 416.2099—0960-0240. Section 1618 of the Social Security Act (Act) contains pass-along provisions of the Social Security amendments. These provisions require states that supplement Federal Supplemental Security Income payments to pass along Federal cost-of-living increases to individuals who are eligible for state supplemental payments. If a state fails to keep payments at the required level, it becomes ineligible for Medicaid reimbursement under title XIX of the
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than September 26, 2012. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1. Request for Internet Services—Authentication; Automated Telephone Speech Technology—Knowledge-Based Authentication (RISA)—20 CFR 401.45—0960-0596. RISA, one of SSA's authentication methods, allows individuals to access their personal information through our Internet and Automated Telephone Services. SSA asks individuals and third parties who seek personal information from SSA records, or who register to participate in SSA's online business services, to provide certain identifying information. As an extra measure of protection, SSA asks requestors who use the Internet and telephone services to provide additional identifying information unique to those services so SSA can authenticate their identities before releasing personal information. The respondents are current beneficiaries who are requesting personal information from SSA, and individuals and third parties who are registering for SSA's online business services.
2. Application for Special Benefits for World War II Veterans—20 CFR 408, Subparts B, C and D—0960-0615. Title VIII of the Act (Special Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans) allows qualified World War II veterans residing outside the United States to receive monthly payments. These regulations establish the requirements individuals need to qualify for and become entitled to Special Veterans Benefits (SVB). SSA uses Form SSA-2000-F6 to elicit the information we need to determine entitlement to SVB. This information collection request comprises the relevant regulations and Form SSA-2006-F6. The respondents are individuals applying for SVB under title VIII of the Act.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling.
We are publishing this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2).
Robert Crowe, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-3155, or TTY 410-966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
An AR explains how we will apply a holding in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we determine conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the Social Security Act (the Act) or regulations when the Government has decided not to seek further review of that decision or is unsuccessful on further review.
We will apply the holding of the Court of Appeals' decision as explained in this AR to all determinations or decisions at all levels of administrative review within the Eighth Circuit. We will apply this AR to all determinations or decisions made on or after August 27, 2012. If we made a determination or decision to apply the WEP to your retirement or disability benefits between February 3, 2011, the date of the Court of Appeals' decision, and August 27, 2012, the effective date of this AR, you may request that we apply the AR to the prior determination or decision. You must show, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2), that applying the AR could change our prior determination or decision in your case.
In addition, when we received this precedential Court of Appeals' decision and determined that an AR might be required, we began to identify those persons within the circuit who might be subject to readjudication if we subsequently issued an AR. Because we have determined that an AR is required and are publishing this AR, we will send a notice to those individuals we have identified. In the notice, we will provide information about the AR and their right to request readjudication under the AR. However, affected individuals do not need to receive a notice in order to request that we apply this AR to our prior determination or decision, as provided in 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2).
If we later rescind this AR as obsolete, we will publish a notice in the
Mr. Petersen applied for Social Security retirement benefits in 2006. Social Security found that he was entitled to benefits but informed Mr. Petersen that his benefit amount would be reduced in accordance with the WEP. The agency denied his request for reconsideration. He requested a hearing by an ALJ, and the ALJ found that Mr. Petersen's benefits should not be reduced because of the WEP. The Appeals Council then reviewed the ALJ's decision on its own motion and subsequently issued a decision finding that Mr. Petersen's benefits were subject to reduction under the WEP. The Appeals Council's decision was the agency's final decision.
Mr. Petersen requested judicial review of the agency's final decision in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 405(g). On February 23, 2009, the district court issued a decision finding that his benefits were not subject to the WEP because 42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)(III) exempts from the WEP those retirement payments based on service as a member of a uniformed service. The district court found that Mr. Petersen's National Guard technician service qualified him for this exception. The Government appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals noted that “dual status” National Guard technicians must maintain military membership in the National Guard and are also required to wear their uniform, even when performing civilian technician work. The Eighth Circuit held that, as a result of “these unique National Guard technician requirements imposed upon him, Petersen performed his work `as a member of' the Nebraska Air National Guard.” Consequently, the Eighth Circuit found that Mr. Petersen qualified for the exception to the WEP for work
The WEP is a modified formula for calculating the retirement or disability benefits of a person who receives a pension from noncovered work (
Congress amended the WEP in 1994 in Pub. L. 103-296, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (the Independence Act). Section 308 of the Independence Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)(III), created a new exemption from the WEP, which applies to “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” as defined in 42 U.S.C. 410(m). We interpret the uniformed services exception to the WEP to mean that only monthly payments based on military service are exempt from the WEP. Under this interpretation, monthly payments that are based on noncovered civilian public employment, including that of National Guard technicians who work under the CSRS, are not exempt from the WEP. Moreover, the effect of the uniformed services exception to the WEP and the regulatory provision found at 20 CFR 404.213(e)(9) is to exempt from the WEP only military retirement pay based on reserve inactive duty training (IDT). Other kinds of military duty, such as active duty, already were not subject to the WEP because they have been covered employment since 1956. The WEP does not apply to noncovered work before 1957.
The legislative history of the uniformed services exception to the WEP explains that the purpose of the exception was to exempt military retired pay, based on noncovered IDT military duty, from application of the WEP. The exception was not intended to exempt any pension based on civilian work from application of the WEP. The Court of Appeals declined to consider the legislative history of the uniformed services exception because it found there was no ambiguity to the uniformed services exception.
Social Security old-age or disability applicants and beneficiaries who receive a CSRS pension based on noncovered work as dual status National Guard technicians, and who are permanent legal residents of a State within the Eighth Circuit, should have their Social Security benefits computed using the normal PIA, rather than the WEP PIA described in 42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7) of the Act. A decisionmaker should not apply this AR to an applicant or beneficiary who is not a permanent legal resident of a State within the Eighth Circuit at the time of making the determination or decision to apply the WEP. Before we determine that the WEP does not apply, we must have evidence that an applicant's or beneficiary's CSRS pension is based on service as a dual status civilian technician with the National Guard.
Notice, correction.
On August 14, 2012, notice was published on pages 48582-3 of the
For further information, including a listing of the exhibit object, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.
Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describes the nature of the information collection and their expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2012.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On June 12, 2012,
Before OMB decides whether to approve a proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden, and are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
In an ongoing effort to conduct more thorough and more effective inspections of freight railroad equipment and to further enhance safe rail operations, FRA has developed a safety concern recommendation report form and a group of guidance checklist forms that facilitate railroad, rail car owner, and rail equipment manufacturer compliance with agency Railroad Safety Appliance Standards regulations. New form FRA F 6180.EZ is designed to reduce burden on respondents. When a request for sample car inspection incoming letter is provided by the customer, an abundant of amount of information is submitted to FRA for review that may require a formal on-site inspection. The information contained in the letter includes several paragraphs to explain the cited Code of Federal Regulations that the customer believes related to the construction of the car. Since many cars today are considered a car of special construction, the type of car to be reviewed, many times the amount of details of information are supplied to support why the customer believes the car submitted is the nearest car to construction. An abundance of factors with justification to support the car type is included in the request. Some examples would be a Logo, Company Name, and signature block, specific drawings, reflectorization, engineering information such as test or modeling of components. Also, the request may include car reporting marks, the amount of cars that would be constructed in the car series. In addition, the request would provide the location of the inspection, contact person, title, and contact information. Currently, each request is written differently, but contains most of the information to process the request to completion. The F6180.EZ Form provides specific blocks that contain a standardized format to provide specific information that is in an easy to fill-in the form arrangement. This would greatly reduce the amount of time to complete the form instead of a long form letter and additional sample car inspection request of similar car orders would be minimized by the information provided previously. By having a form of this nature, the customer will have the information visually that would be required, to eliminate the potential of missing information that then causes additional letters to complete the incoming package. FRA could potentially be able to provide a cursory review of the provided information to ensure the package is complete without having to constantly compare the request letter to the supplied documents.
The FRA region responsible for the sample car field sample car inspection is obliged to formally insect the car for compliance. All the information in the customer request is forwarded to the region for review. Once the inspection is completed, the assigned inspector provides his report in a memorandum to the MP&E Specialist. The MP&E Specialist reviews the documents and provides a memo to the Regional Administrator who sends a response by memorandum to FRA Headquarters of the finding from the field inspection. The additional memorandums would be eliminated by the F6180.4 EZ just by a grid sign-off, reducing the amount of additional paperwork and filing documents.
FRA Headquarters is responsible for gathering all the information from the request from the customer as well as assigning and forwarding the information to the Region. All the information is reviewed by the MP&E Specialist at Headquarters. The MP&E Specialist prepares a grid letter response for the MP&E Staff Director who then offers the response letter to the Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance. The formal response letter is then sent to the customer through the Control Correspondence Management (CCM) system. The filing system and folders today are already large in size, and would be reduced by having a form that is on one piece of paper with all the information necessary to complete the process from the initial request for sample car inspection to the formal response letter provided.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory Committee (ITS PAC) will hold a meeting by teleconference on September 11, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT).
The ITS PAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-chartered on January 23, 2012, was created to advise the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office, the ITS PAC makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
The following is a summary of the web conference tentative agenda: (1) Committee high level plan of action; and (2) Requirements for ITS Joint Program Office and external subject matter experts.
Participation in the teleconference is open to the public, but limited conference lines will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to participate must notify Mr. Stephen Glasscock, the Committee Designated Federal Official, at (202) 366-9126 no later than September 5, 2012, at which time the teleconference phone number will be provided. Members of the public may present oral statements during the teleconference with Mr. Glasscock's approval. Persons wishing to present oral statements or obtain information should contact Mr. Glasscock.
Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT, Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to (202) 493-2027. The ITS Joint Program Office requests that written comments be submitted prior to the teleconference.
Notice of this teleconference is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory committees.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 23 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions are effective August 27, 2012. The exemptions expire on August 27, 2014.
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On July 11, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 23 individuals and requested comments from the public (77 FR 40941). The public comment period closed on August 10, 2012, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 23 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A
These 23 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 35 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 11, 2012,
FMCSA did not receive any comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Randall W. Amtower (WV), Steven G. Brickey (CO), Ronald K. Coleman (KY), Randall L. Corrick (ND), Raymond G. Gravesandy (NY), John T. Green (TX), Gregory M. Harris (TX), Bryan R. Hopkins (NY), Kelly M. Keller (ND), Roger S. Kumbalek (WI), Timothy J. Loeschen (TX), Gary K. McCord (IN), Joseph L. Miska (MN), Susan L. Mosel (WI), Mark T. L. Owings (KS), Jacob D. Oxford (ID), Derek W. Palmer (MA), Robert D. Regavich (NJ), Jack W. Schlichting (MN), Lonnie H. Shere (WA), Craig A. Trimmer (OH), Lisa E. Williams (IN), and Ramon I. Zimora-Ortiz (WA) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under “Conditions and Requirements” above.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the 1/exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 10 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions are effective August 27, 2012. The exemptions expire on August 27, 2014.
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202)-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On June 27, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (77 FR 38381). That notice listed 10 applicants' case histories. The 10 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 10 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 10 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, complete loss of vision, and cystoidal macular edema. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Eight of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The two individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for a period of 1 to 16 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 10 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 5 to 40 years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and none of the drivers was convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 27, 2012 notice (77 FR 38381).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 10 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and none was convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 10 applicants listed in the notice of June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38381).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 10 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 10 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Kerry L. Baxter (UT), Tyrane Harper (AL), Edward C. Little (WA), John P. Loichinger (IN), Jeffrey Macysyn (IN), Peter G. Packard (NH), Raef O. Parmalee (OR), Ronald H. Sieg (MO), Ted L. Smeltzer (IN), and Gregory S. Smith (AR) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on two information collections that we will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal. The information collections relate to the program for Control Room Management/Human Factors and the Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2012.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for renewal. The following information is provided for that information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for the information collection activity. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
Total Annual Responses: 2,702.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,018,807.
Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.
Total Annual Responses: 9,343.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 865,178.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to develop and evaluate a patient-centered model of care for OEF/OIF veterans with PTSD.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316 or FAX (202) 395-6974. Please refer to “2900-New (VA Form 10-0529a-f).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, Fax (202) 632-7583 or email:
a. SF 12, Questionnaire, VA Form 10-0529.
b. (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), VA Form 10-0529a.
c. PTSD Checklist (PCL), VA Form 10-0529Bb.
d. Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire- Short Form (PSQ-18), VA Form 10-0529c.
e. Combat Exposure Scale (CES), VA Form 10-0529d.
f. World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF), VA Form 10-0529e.
g. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II), VA Form 10-0529f.
The data collected on VA Forms 10-0529a-f will be used to develop and evaluate a patient-centered model of care for OEF/OIF Veterans with PTSD. The forms will be used to survey the effectiveness of the patient centered medical home model by enhancing the conventional care currently provided in the care of patients with PTSD.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to assess the effectiveness of pain care management provided to veterans.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316 or FAX (202) 395-6974. Please refer to “2900-New (VA Form 10-0532a-k).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7479, FAX (202) 632-7583 or email:
By direction of the Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is modifying the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's risk policy regarding stocks without an overfishing limit. Framework Adjustment 6 was initiated by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in order to clarify its tolerance for risk for such stocks. The modification will allow increases of the acceptable biological catch for stocks that have stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for which there is robust scientific information to suggest that an increased acceptable biological catch will not lead to overfishing.
Effective on August 24, 2012.
Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), for Framework Adjustment 6, and the Omnibus Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measure Amendment EA/RIR, are available from: John K. Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the Internet at
Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.
NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 6 on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38566). Additional background information and detail on why and how Framework Adjustment 6 was developed are included in the proposed rule, and are not repeated here. The Council established acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules (implementing regulations at 50 CFR 648.20) and a risk policy (§ 648.21) to guide the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in its ABC setting process for all Council fishery management plans (FMPs) in the recently implemented Omnibus Amendment for Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures (October 31, 2011; 76 FR 60606). The Council's original risk policy did not permit increases to the ABC for stocks that lack an overfishing limit (OFL) derived either from the stock assessment, or through the SSC ABC recommendation process. Framework Adjustment 6 modifies the risk policy regarding stocks without an OFL or OFL proxy to allow the SSC to recommend increases to the ABC for stocks that have stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for which the SSC can point to robust scientific information to suggest that an increased ABC will not lead to overfishing. The adjustment to this policy does not change the Council's approach to stocks without an OFL that have declining biomass, or for which the SSC cannot point to scientific evidence to suggest that the recommended ABC will not result in overfishing.
Though this action only modifies the MSB FMP, the adjusted risk policy applies to all of the Council's managed species, including Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish. The regulations for the ABC control rules and risk policy reside in the MSB FMP, but are a product of the Omnibus Amendment, which affected all of the FMPs for the above-listed species. The provisions in the Omnibus Amendment, including the risk policy, do not apply to longfin squid or
NMFS received a total of four comments on the proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 6 from: Lund's Fisheries, Inc., a processing facility in Cape May, NJ; the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA), a New Jersey-based commercial fishing industry group; the Herring Alliance, which represents 52 organizations concerned about the status of the Atlantic Coast's forage fish; and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Neither the Magnuson-Stevens Act nor the National Standard 1 guidelines have language prohibiting increases in ABC in the absence of an OFL. The National Standard 1 guidelines do advise that, when possible, the determination of an ABC should be based on the probability that an actual catch equal to the stock's ABC would result in overfishing (see § 600.310(f)(4)), but make no mention of how a Council should proceed when it is not possible to establish an OFL or OFL proxy. Each Council may determine the acceptable level of risk of overfishing (which overall must be below 50 percent, according to Magnuson-Stevens Act; § 600.310(f)(4)). In this case, the Council is further defining its risk tolerance for certain stocks without an OFL or OFL proxy.
The SSC has noted its preference to have an OFL estimate that is based on the assessment, which takes into account all information about population dynamics that is available at the time (see Framework Adjustment 6 discussion at April 2012 Council meeting). It noted that, rather than deriving an OFL proxy when an OFL is unavailable from the assessment, its preference is to simply set an ABC that it believes would not lead to overfishing based on all other available evidence. NMFS agrees that this approach is valid, provided that sufficient scientific evidence is presented in the SSC's deliberations to suggest that its recommendation will not result in overfishing of the stock in question. As further support for this approach, the National Standard 1 guidelines at § 600.310(f)(3) note that while NMFS expects that in most cases a recommended ABC should be reduced from the OFL to reduce the probability of overfishing, the ABC may be set equal to the OFL. Again, NMFS expect the SSC and the Council to present very strong justification for such cases (§ 600.310(f)(5)).
In contrast, Lund's Fisheries, Inc., and GSSA supported the Council's 2012 butterfish recommendations. They noted that any increases in butterfish catch would be expected to be very small relative to the actual increase in butterfish abundance. They also asserted that the chances of overfishing the butterfish resource under the modest quota increases initially proposed by the Council and NMFS in the proposed rule for 2012 butterfish specifications are, by SSC estimates, extremely low.
NMFS notes that the merits of the SSC's ABC recommendations for the 2012 and 2013 fishing years are not the subject of this rulemaking, but offers some discussion of these issues because of their relevance to Framework 6. With regard to the SSC's 2012 ABC recommendation, the NRDC references NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616 (Calculating Acceptable Biological Catch for Stocks that have Reliable Catch Data Only (Only Reliable Catch Stocks—ORCS; 2011)). The memorandum was developed by a Working Group comprised of representatives from seven of the eight SSCs, five of the six NMFS Science Centers, NMFS Headquarters, academic institutions, a state agency, and a non-governmental organization to offer guidance that can be used to set ABCs for stocks that only have reliable catch data, are lightly fished, and appear to have stable or increasing trends. The SSC noted that the butterfish stock met the criteria outlined for this approach, and relied on the concepts in this guidance document in developing its ABC recommendation. The report recommends doubling catch during a stable period to create an OFL, setting the ABC at 50 to 90 percent of the OFL, and then tracking the stock to see how the adjusted catch levels affect abundance. During its public process, the SSC discussed that, given that butterfish fishing mortality was likely contributing very little to changes in stock abundance, the ABC could be doubled and still yield a fishing mortality rate that would not affect stock size. The SSC also commented during Council deliberations that establishing an OFL or OFL proxy would not have changed its ABC recommendation for 2012. NMFS considered the SSC's rationale for increasing the butterfish ABC and found it to be appropriate and well supported by the best available scientific information. The SSC was guided by NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616, and used its scientific judgment to recommend an ABC that was expected to result in a level of fishing mortality documented in SAW 49, and, as noted by the SSC, was not expected to result in overfishing of the butterfish resource.
NMFS notes that, since the initiation of Framework Adjustment 6, the SSC reaffirmed its original 2012 butterfish ABC recommendation of 3,622 mt (originally recommended in May 2011) at their May 2012 meeting in accordance with the provisions in Framework Adjustment 6, and the Council reaffirmed their original suite of recommended specifications (originally recommended in June 2011) at its June 2012 meeting. As noted in the response to Comment 3, NMFS will publish a rule to finalize butterfish specifications shortly.
Comments on the Council's 2013 specifications recommendations will be addressed in the 2013 specifications process. The SSC recommended a 2013 butterfish ABC to the Council at its May 2012 meeting, and the Council adopted the SSC's recommendation, along with butterfish specifications and management measures, at its June 2012 meeting. The Council is finalizing its recommendation, which will be submitted to NMFS for review and rulemaking. NMFS clarifies that the SSC did not rely on the provisions in Framework Adjustment 6 for its 2013 butterfish ABC recommendation because it was able to develop an OFL proxy during its deliberations.
Framework Adjustment 6 does not change the Council's approach for all Level 4 stocks, and only allows the SSC to recommend ABC increases for Level 4 stocks under very limited circumstances. Stocks without an OFL or OFL proxy that have evidence of biomass declines or for which the SSC cannot point to scientific evidence to suggest that the recommended ABC will not result in overfishing will still be bound by the original risk policy.
Adjustments to the existing Council risk policy can be addressed through the framework process for all Council-managed species (see § 648.25(a)(1) for
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that this framework adjustment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic Bluefish; Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; and Tilefish FMPs is necessary for the conservation and management of the Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action because delaying the effectiveness of this rule would be contrary to the public interest. Immediate implementation of Framework Adjustment 6 will allow for the increase in the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery to 2,445 mt (a 1,009-mt increase from status quo) through the implementation of the final 2012 butterfish specifications. The Council initiated process for Framework Adjustment 6 at its February 2012 meeting, which was the first Council meeting after it realized that its risk policy may need further clarification with respect to stocks without an overfishing limit. The timeline that this action has followed has been the fastest possible given statutory requirements, and happens to coincide with the start of Trimester III for longfin squid. By the time the longfin squid fishery closed on July 10, 2012, in Trimester II, over 100 percent of the status quo annual allocation of the butterfish mortality cap was estimated to have been taken. Because the butterfish mortality cap closes the longfin squid fishery in Trimester III when 90 percent of the annual butterfish cap allocation has been taken, under the status quo allocation, the longfin squid fishery would not be opened at the start of Trimester III on September 1, 2012. The increased butterfish mortality cap implemented through the final 2012 butterfish specifications will allow for the longfin squid fishery to operate during Trimester III. Longfin squid migrate throughout their range and have sporadic availability. The fleet is quick to target longfin squid aggregations when they do appear, and is capable of landing over 550 mt in a single week. Analysis of this year's fishing activity indicates that longfin squid was particularly abundant this spring and summer, and historical availability patterns suggest that longfin squid abundance could still be high in the early fall. Only 7,761 mt of the 22,220 mt longfin squid quota has been harvested this year, meaning that well over half of the quota remains to be harvested during the final 4 months of the fishing year. A 30-day delay in the implementation of this rulemaking, and thus a delay in the implementation of the final 2012 butterfish specifications, may prevent fishermen from accessing longfin squid when it is temporarily available within portions of its range and prevent the harvest of a significant amount of longfin squid quota (up to 2,220 mt of the remaining 14,459 mt of longfin squid quota), negating any benefit of implementing this rule.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
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
(d)
(2) The SSC may deviate from paragraph (d)(1) of this section, provided that the following two criteria are met: Biomass-based reference points indicate that the stock is greater than B
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is implementing final 2012 specifications and management measures for the butterfish fishery, which is managed as part of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. This action requires a 3-inch (76-mm) minimum codend mesh size in order to possess more than 2,000 lb (0.9 mt) of butterfish (up from 1,000 lb (0.45mt)). These specifications and management measures promote the utilization and conservation of the butterfish resource.
Effective on August 24, 2012.
Copies of the 2012 specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), is available from John K. Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. This document is also accessible via the Internet at
Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.
On October 26, 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule (76 FR 66260) that included the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) preferred butterfish specifications. Though an overfishing limit (OFL) was not able to be established for butterfish based on the most recent butterfish assessment, the Council's preferred specifications would have doubled the butterfish acceptable biological catch (ABC) for fishing year 2012 over the status quo level (to 3,622 mt). A public comment on the proposed rule submitted by the Herring Alliance, an environmental group that represents 52 organizations concerned about the status of the Atlantic coast's forage fish, accurately stated that the proposed increase to the butterfish ABC is prohibited by the Council's former risk policy. That policy, at 50 CFR 648.21(d), states: “If an OFL cannot be determined from the stock assessment, or if a proxy is not provided by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) during the ABC recommendation process, ABC levels may not be increased until such time that an OFL has been identified.” To remedy this situation, NMFS published an interim final rule for butterfish specifications (March 21, 2012; 77 FR 16472) that temporarily reinstated the status quo butterfish specifications (1,811 mt ABC; 1,630 mt ACT; 500 mt domestic annual harvest (DAH) and domestic annual processing (DAP); 1,436 mt butterfish mortality cap) and allowed for public comment.
The interim final rule was published to address the procedural impediment to finalizing the original proposed butterfish specification identified in the comment noted above. This action finalizes the interim rule. Because NMFS already proposed the specifications and management measures contained in this final rule at the initial proposed rule stage, and the public already had an opportunity to comment on the proposed specifications (October 26, 2011; 76 FR 66260), there is no need to re-propose these final specifications. NMFS used the interim final rule to accept comments on the lower specification, but also responded to comments on the higher proposed specification in the interim final rule (March 21, 2012; 77 FR 16472). Comments on the interim final rule are addressed in the Comments and Responses section of this rule.
Since the publication of the interim final rule for butterfish specifications, the Council recommended, and NMFS has approved, Framework Adjustment 6 (Framework 6) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Framework 6 adjusts the Council's risk policy to allow the SSC to propose ABC increases for stocks that have stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for which there is robust scientific information to suggest that an increased ABC will not lead to overfishing. In accordance with the adjustments in Framework 6, the SSC reaffirmed its original 2012 butterfish ABC recommendation of 3,622 mt (initially recommended at the SSC's May 2011 meeting to recommend 2012 butterfish specifications) at its May 2012 meeting.
Following the SSC's reaffirmation of the 2012 butterfish specifications, the Council reaffirmed its original suite of recommended specifications at its June 2012 meeting. Therefore, this action now sets butterfish specifications in accordance with the Council's original recommendation for the remainder of the 2012 fishing year (until December 31, 2012). The butterfish ABC and ACL are specified at 3,622 mt, and the ACL is specified at 3,260 mt (reduced 10 percent from ACL). This action allocates
The butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery is specified at 2,445 mt (75 percent of 3,260 mt). If the butterfish mortality cap is harvested during Trimester I (January-April) or Trimester III (September-December), the directed longfin squid fishery will close for the remainder of that trimester.
The 2012 butterfish mortality cap is allocated by Trimester as follows:
Finally, this action implements a 3-inch (76-mm) minimum codend mesh size requirement for vessels possessing 2,000 lb (0.9 mt) or more of butterfish (up from 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) in 2011), in order to allow more butterfish that otherwise would have been discarded to be landed.
In its reaffirmation of its recommended 2012 butterfish ABC of 3,622 mt, the SSC also noted that the rationale for the 2013 butterfish ABC recommendation provides additional support for its 2012 butterfish ABC recommendation. The SSC's final butterfish ABC recommendation for 2013 is 8,400 mt, based on an OFL proxy of 16,800 mt. A detailed summary of the SSC's rationale for its 2013 butterfish ABC recommendation is available in its May 2012 Report (available, along with other materials from the SSC discussion, at:
Because of the uncertainty in the most recent butterfish stock assessment, on April 6, 2012, the Council requested that NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) offer additional analysis of the butterfish stock to aid the SSC in the ABC setting process for the 2013 fishing year. The NEFSC analysis (May 2, 2012, also available with the SSC meeting report) applied ranges of a number of different factors (such as natural mortality and survey catchability) to develop a range of likely stock biomasses that would be consistent with recent survey results and observed butterfish catch. The NEFSC also examined a range of fishing mortalities that would result from these biomass estimates. The SSC used the NEFSC analysis, along with guidance (Patterson, 1992) that suggests maintaining a natural mortality/fishing mortality ratio of 67 percent for small pelagic species, to develop a proxy OFL for butterfish. Consistent with the 2010 butterfish assessment, the SSC assumed a high level of natural morality (M = 0.8) and applied the 67-percent ratio to result in a fishing mortality of F = 0.536, which the SSC used as a proxy maximum fishing mortality rate threshold for butterfish. In the NEFSC analysis, a catch of 16,800 mt would only lead to fishing mortality rates higher than F = 0.536 (i.e., rates consistent with overfishing based on the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold proxy) under very extreme assumptions. The SSC therefore adopted 16,800 mt as a proxy OFL.
The SSC buffered the proxy OFL by 50 percent to reach the butterfish ABC of 8,400 mt. Its justification for this buffer noted that the short life history of butterfish gives limited time for management to respond to adverse patterns, that recruitment of butterfish is highly variable and uncertain, that the stock status of butterfish is unknown, and that butterfish are susceptible to environmental and ecosystem variability, in particular inter-annual variability in natural mortality.
Five comments were submitted on the interim final butterfish specifications from: Seafreeze, Ltd. (Seafreeze), a frozen seafood producer based in Rhode Island; Dr. Joel Jay Sohn, a research associate at Harvard University; the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA), an industry group representing members of the commercial fishing industry in New Jersey; the Herring Alliance, which represents 52 organizations concerned about the status of the Atlantic Coast's forage fish; and one member of the public.
The Herring Alliance referenced NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616 (Calculating Acceptable Biological Catch for Stocks That Have Reliable Catch Data Only (Only Reliable Catch Stocks—ORCS; 2011)). The memorandum was developed by a Working Group comprised of representatives from seven of the eight SSCs, five of the six NMFS Science Centers, NMFS Headquarters, academic institutions, a state agency, and a non-governmental organization, to offer guidance which can be used to set ABCs for stocks that only have reliable catch data, are lightly fished, and appear to have stable or increasing trends. The SSC noted that the butterfish stock met the criteria outlined for this approach, and relied on the concepts in this guidance document in developing its ABC recommendation. The report recommends doubling catch during a stable period to create an OFL, setting the ABC at 50 to 90 percent of the OFL, and then tracking the stock to see how the adjusted catch levels affect abundance. During its public process, the SSC discussed that, because butterfish fishing mortality was likely contributing very little to changes in stock abundance, the ABC could be doubled and still yield a fishing mortality rate that would not affect stock size. The SSC also commented during Council deliberations that establishing an OFL or OFL proxy would not have changed its ABC recommendation for 2012. NMFS considered the SSC's rational for increasing the butterfish ABC and found it to be appropriate and well supported by the best available scientific information. Though the SSC used the guidance in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616, it used its scientific judgment to recommend an ABC that was expected to result in a level of fishing mortality documented in SAW 49, and, at the time of NMFS's initial proposed rule, was not expected to result in overfishing of the butterfish resource.
The observation that natural mortality is much higher than fishing mortality is not used as a justification for increasing catch levels; it is offered in SAW 49 as part of the determination that fishing mortality does not appear to be the major driving factor determining butterfish stock size, and that other environmental factors are the primary drivers of butterfish abundance levels. The relative contribution of fishing mortality compared to natural mortality is well documented in SAW 49. The anecdotal observations of increased butterfish abundance provided by the fishing industry were not noted as a basis for the decision, but were offered as part of the fishery performance reports generated during the Council's specification process. Observations from the fishing industry are often used to contextualize the scientific information being considered by SSC members.
NMFS still supports the rationale that the SSC put forward in recommending the 3,622-mt ABC for butterfish during
As noted by the commenter, National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act discusses the specification of OY, and requires that an FMP or amendment prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines “optimum” with respect to yield from a fishery, as being prescribed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by relevant economic, social or ecological factors (16 U.S.C. 1802(33)). The Council's FMPs all contain a process for assessing, specifying, identifying, and adjusting OY, as needed, based on relevant economic, social, and ecological factors for each species. The guidelines state that achieving OY on a continuing basis means producing a long-term series of catches such that the average catch is equal to OY and other conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are met (§ 600.310(e)(3)(i)(B)). The guidelines further state that an FMP must contain measures, including ACLs and AMs, to achieve OY on a continuing basis. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and guidelines do not require that OY considerations be addressed when developing ACLs. The implementing regulations for the Council's Omnibus Amendment require that the ACL be set equal to the ABC for all Council-managed species, but the Council may take these additional factors into account when establishing ACTs (see final NS1 guidelines, 74 FR 3178, 3189 (explaining OY, ABC, ACT, ACL relationships in response 33)).
In addition to comments on the regulatory content of this rulemaking, Seafreeze, and Dr. Sohn commented extensively on the butterfish stock assessment. NMFS does not typically respond in detail to comments on the merits of the assessment in the response to comments in rulemaking. This is because assessments are conducted and finalized prior to and separate from rulemakings, and feature their own process for public participation procedures. Comments on the merits of an assessment, and the information used in the assessment, can therefore not be addressed during the rulemaking process, but rather need to be addressed in the assessment process. Given the nature of the comments on the interim final rule for butterfish specifications, NMFS recognizes that commenters are making a direct link between the merits of the butterfish assessment and our approval of the Council's recommended
There will be a series of public meetings to determine the data and model used in the benchmark butterfish assessment, and commenters are welcome to attend. Also underway are projects to determine ways in which measures of habitat association by butterfish might be incorporated into the next assessment model. Zoogeographical ecosystem-based models would be ideal for all species but, to the best of our knowledge, there are no stocks anywhere that are assessed using such a spatially-detailed model. The absence of such models reflects the real data limitations and our inability to parameterize such a complex model, rather than a naïve understanding of the species biology. While an enormous amount of information on the demography of butterfish is considered in the assessment, the rapid growth and short lifespan of butterfish, as well as other limitations, such as poor discard estimate precision, contribute to the poor precision of butterfish spawning biomass estimates. We are confident that the new comprehensive study will improve our knowledge of the butterfish population, and help NMFS and the Council in future population estimates.
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that these specifications are necessary for the conservation and management of the butterfish fishery and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action because delaying the effectiveness of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.
Immediately implementing the final 2012 butterfish specifications will not only benefit the butterfish fishery directly, it will also aid the longfin squid fishery because the rule will increase the butterfish mortality cap in that fishery to 2,445 mt (a 1,009-mt increase from status quo). By the time the longfin squid fishery closed on July 10, 2012, in Trimester II, over 100 percent of the status quo annual allocation of the butterfish mortality cap was estimated to have been taken. Because the butterfish mortality cap closes the longfin squid fishery in Trimester III when 90 percent of the annual butterfish cap allocation has been taken, under the status quo allocation, the longfin squid fishery would not be opened at the start of Trimester III on September 1, 2012. The increased butterfish mortality cap implemented through the final 2012 butterfish specifications will allow for the longfin squid fishery to operate during Trimester III. Longfin squid migrate throughout their range and have sporadic availability. The fleet is quick to target longfin squid aggregations when they do appear, and is capable of landing over 550 mt in a single week. Analysis of this year's fishing activity indicates that longfin squid was particularly abundant this spring and summer, and historical availability patterns suggest that longfin squid abundance could still be high in the early fall. Only 7,761 mt of the 22,220 mt longfin squid quota has been harvested this year, meaning that well over half of the quota remains to be harvested during the final 4 months of the fishing year. A 30-day delay in the implementation of this rulemaking, may prevent fishermen from accessing longfin squid when it is temporarily available within portions of its range and prevent the harvest of a significant amount of longfin squid quota (up to 2,220 mt of the remaining 14,459 mt of longfin squid quota), negating any benefit of implementing this rule.
Moreover, the fishing entities affected by this rule need not change their practice or gear, or make any other modifications to come into compliance with this action. They can continue to fish as they do now without any change after this rule goes into effect. Accordingly, the 30-day delay in effectiveness is not necessary here, where there is no need for the affected entities to modify their behavior, purchase new gear, or otherwise adjust their activities to come into compliance with the rule.
The Council prepared an EA for the 2012 specifications, and the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA is available upon request (see
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has prepared a FRFA in support of the 2012 specifications and management measures. The FRFA describes the economic impact that this final rule, along with other non-preferred alternatives, will have on small entities.
The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts and analysis summaries in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments. A copy of the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA are available upon request (see
This action implements 2012 specifications for butterfish and adjusts the gear requirements for the butterfish fishery. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to the proposed and final rules and are not repeated here.
Comment 13 was not specifically directed to the IRFA, but expressed concern about negative economic impacts of the specifications for butterfish on small entities. The comment is fully described in the “Comments and Responses” section of the preamble to this final rule and, therefore, is not repeated here.
Based on permit data for 2011, the numbers of potential fishing vessels in the 2012 MSB fisheries are as follows: 351 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits; 1,904 incidental squid/butterfish permits; and 831 MSB party/charter permits. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, permit numbers are not additive. Small businesses operating in commercial and recreational (i.e., party and charter vessel operations) fisheries have been defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with gross revenues of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively. There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as that term is defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, there are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
The butterfish DAH specified in this action (1,072 mt) represents a 114-percent increase over the 2011 DAH (500 mt). Though there has not been a directed butterfish fishery in recent years due to market conditions, the butterfish DAH was exceeded during the 2010 and 2011 fishing years. The increase in the DAH has the potential to increase revenue for permitted vessels.
The adjustment to the gear requirement for the butterfish fishery, which requires vessels possessing 2,000 lb (0.9 mt) or more of butterfish to fish with a 3-inch (76-mm) minimum codend mesh, is expected to result in a modest increase in revenue for fishery participants. This adjustment will enable additional retention of butterfish by vessels using small-mesh fishing gear. Previously, the mesh size requirement applied to vessels possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish.
As discussed in the FRFA for MSB Amendment 10 (75 FR 11441; March 11, 2010), the butterfish mortality cap may potentially economically impact fishery participants. The longfin squid fishery closes during Trimesters I and III if the butterfish mortality cap is reached. If the longfin squid fishery is closed in response to butterfish catch before the entire longfin squid quota is harvested, then the fishery may lose revenue. The potential for longfin squid revenue loss depends upon the size of the butterfish mortality cap. The 2012 butterfish mortality cap of 2,445 mt specified in this action represents a 70-percent increase over status quo (1,436 mt). The 2011 butterfish mortality cap did not result in a closure of the longfin squid fishery in Trimester I. At the start of Trimester III, over 55 percent of the butterfish mortality cap (compared to 31.7 percent allocated at the start of the fishing year) was available for the longfin squid fishery for the duration of the fishing year. The status quo butterfish mortality cap was implemented in the interim final butterfish specifications during Trimester I of the 2012 fishing year, and did result in a closure of the longfin squid fishery. In addition, at the time of publication of this action, the butterfish cap has already exceeded the Trimester III closure threshold, meaning that the lower status quo cap would not allow the longfin squid fishery to reopen during Trimester III. Given that the lower cap constrained the longfin squid fishery in 2012, it is reasonable to expect that the proposed increase to the cap may provide for additional fishing opportunities for the longfin squid fishery between the implementation of this rule and the end of the 2012 fishing year on December 31, 2012. For that reason, additional revenue losses are not expected as a result of this proposed action.
There were six alternatives to the preferred action for butterfish that were not selected. The first (status quo) and second non-selected alternatives were based on the specifications structure that existed prior to the implementation of the Omnibus Amendment, and were not selected because they no longer comply with the MSB FMP. The third alternative (least restrictive) would have set the ABC and ACL at 4,528 mt, the ACT at 4,075 mt, the DAH and DAP at 1,358 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap at 3,056 mt. The fourth alternative would have set the ABC and ACL at 2,717 mt, the ACT at 2,445 mt, the DAH and DAP at 815 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap at 1,834 mt. These two alternatives were not selected because they were all inconsistent with the ABC recommended by the SSC. The fifth non-selected alternative would have set ABC and ACL at 1,811 mt, the ACT at 1,630 mt, the DAH and DAP at 543 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap at 1,222 mt. This alternative was not selected because it is inconsistent with status quo. The sixth alternative was the modified status quo alternative that was implemented in the interim final butterfish specifications.
There were two alternatives regarding the adjustment to the butterfish gear requirement. The status quo alternative requires vessels possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish to fish with a 3-inch (76-mm) minimum codend mesh. The selected alternative (3-inch (76-mm) mesh to possess 2,000 lb (0.9 mt)) could create some additional revenue in the form of butterfish landings for vessels using mesh sizes smaller than 3 inches (76 mm).
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) * * *
(1)